Where's the Bard?

[TwinBahamut]

The bard performing things like Blur, Displacement, Blink, etc - would be real great, I think.

Although I think that bards shouldn't be just Music based. Honestly, I want an orator. Or a writer. Or a debonair swashbuckler who inspires by action.

I think I would prefer Bards to stick to music, really...

A bard as a general "artist" is a highly flawed concept. Oration is similar enough to music, but a writer or painter? I can't imagine that working at all. Music is auditory, it affects those who listen to it. It affects people at a deep level, and is not based on logic or detailed interpretation. Most importantly, music can be performed even in the middle of a battlefield, and you don't need to stop and contemplate it in order for it to have an effect on you. I really can't imagine that Bardic abilities will just be rooted in the artistic talents of the bard off the battlefield, and I imagine that the auditory element will play an important role. It is not like a writer can just write a book on the battlefield, or a painter can paint anything interesting in a short period of time, and yet, shouldn't a Bard be doing artistic things even on the battlefield? Isn't that what makes them unique?

I don't know... If I were designing the classes, I would never try to fold all kinds of art into the same class. If I wanted a painter/writer/sculptor class, I would think it would be better suited as the kind of person who creates art outside of battle, and then magically brings it to life in the battle, or something like that (it even hits on a few pop culture ideas of magical artists and a few folktales), while I would be fine with magical musicians who sings in the middle of a fight. It just don't seem like such different art forms can be reconciled in the same class very effectively.

 

[Vayden]

My point is that this is both an unneccesary design goal, and general bad.

No offense Reynard, but why is it bad? I understand the idea that it's not necessary - you think it's fine for some players to "not be good at things" in the sense of not having anything to contribute for an encounter. I understand that point of view. What I don't understand is why it's "general bad". Isn't it better to balance things the way Mearls&Co are trying to do, if you can pull it off successfully? Wouldn't it be better to have a situation where in any situation, everyone can contribute something and be doing something useful, all in different ways?

 

[TwinBahamut]

lol!

I think that the Bard won't need to do his art in order to use the gifts his otherworldly patrons give him. So he may not necessarily need to paint right away in order to assist his allies ("If we make it through this, lads, I'll make sure you're on the cover of the next PHB!")

In that case, what exactly is[/i[ he doing? If he is defined as a painter, and has class abilities based on his skill as a painter, then what is he doing in the middle of battle if it has nothing to do with painting? Is he summoning muses? Casting spells? Making snarky comments about his foes' lack of artistic vision? None of that seems like a bard to me.

I just can't think of anything uniquely bard-like for such a character to be doing in the middle of battle. I can think of wizard-like things he could be doing, but not bard-like.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

In that case, what exactly is[/i[ he doing? If he is defined as a painter, and has class abilities based on his skill as a painter, then what is he doing in the middle of battle if it has nothing to do with painting? Is he summoning muses? Casting spells? Making snarky comments about his foes' lack of artistic vision? None of that seems like a bard to me.

I just can't think of anything uniquely bard-like for such a character to be doing in the middle of battle. I can think of wizard-like things he could be doing, but not bard-like.

Good point. I take back what I said. Perhaps the painter Bard will whip out a paintbrush and "paint" images in the air. Maybe the images are inspiring, just like singing or a fine speech.

 

[Reynard]

No offense Reynard, but why is it bad? I understand the idea that it's not necessary - you think it's fine for some players to "not be good at things" in the sense of not having anything to contribute for an encounter. I understand that point of view. What I don't understand is why it's "general bad". Isn't it better to balance things the way Mearls&Co are trying to do, if you can pull it off successfully? Wouldn't it be better to have a situation where in any situation, everyone can contribute something and be doing something useful, all in different ways?

RPGs are very different from other kinds of games. Although there may be mechanical similarities, although many games involve groups of people getting together to have fun, RPGs have a number of components that make them special. First and foremost, they are open and free in a way that other games cannot be. The best RPGs embrace this openness and freedom and even while they very often have a specific setting, genre and tone, they are built not to tell the people using them how to ave fun, but provide the users with tools to make their own fun. Among these tools the ability to choose from a wide variety of options that can be embraced or ignored, switches that can be turned on and off, to allow the users to do this.

It is "generally bad" to build every D&D class as a fully capable combatant because it takes a tool out of the toolbox. While I understand that some players scoff at the idea that it might be fun to play a character that hides under a table anytime a bar fight breaks out, we all have seen exactly this in other forms of entertainment and found it to be both entertaining and internally consistent with the character. in an RPG, that would translate to being fun to play. It so happens that D&D is a class based game (or, in the parlance of 4E, a role based game). As such, providing the tool that is a character that doesn't have superhuman combat ability means providing a class that allows this. Or, more to the point, it means *not* requiring that every character be a skilled combatant. because when you do that, you (as in, the designer) is defining fun for your users instead of giving them the tools to make their own fun.

 

[Mr. Patient]

As such, providing the tool that is a character that doesn't have superhuman combat ability means providing a class that allows this. Or, more to the point, it means *not* requiring that every character be a skilled combatant. because when you do that, you (as in, the designer) is defining fun for your users instead of giving them the tools to make their own fun.

This is just baffling. Wouldn't it make more sense for the designers to create a range of classes with different but equally interesting and effective skills, and then have the individual players underplay them if they so choose? I could roll a 3.5 wizard with a 9 Intelligence right now and hide him under the table if that's what floated my boat. I don't need a designer to deliberately make an inept class for me. So why not have the designers actually do the hard bit and make all the classes pretty good out of the box, and leave it to the players to make them inept?

 

[The Little Raven]

While I understand that some players scoff at the idea that it might be fun to play a character that hides under a table anytime a bar fight breaks out, we all have seen exactly this in other forms of entertainment and found it to be both entertaining and internally consistent with the character.

And nothing in 4e would prevent anyone from playing a cowardly character. The difference is that you have other options aside from it, since you aren't mechanically shafted in an important part of the game. You can choose to be ineffectual in combat, because you want to roleplaying your character that way, but you aren't being forced to be ineffectual in combat by game design.

As such, providing the tool that is a character that doesn't have superhuman combat ability means providing a class that allows this. Or, more to the point, it means *not* requiring that every character be a skilled combatant. because when you do that, you (as in, the designer) is defining fun for your users instead of giving them the tools to make their own fun.

Your view on design would make some classes ineffective in combat, intentionally, and that would inhibit the fun of people that don't want to play ineffectual characters in combat. So, you would deny me my fun (playing a bard that isn't totally lame when initiative gets rolled) in order for you to have your fun (playing a bad that is totally lame when initiative starts), which dismisses the fact that you can ignore your combat abilities all you want, while I would have to redesign the class.

 

[Reynard]

Your view on design would make some classes ineffective in combat, intentionally, and that would inhibit the fun of people that don't want to play ineffectual characters in combat. So, you would deny me my fun (playing a bard that isn't totally lame when initiative gets rolled) in order for you to have your fun (playing a bad that is totally lame when initiative starts), which dismisses the fact that you can ignore your combat abilities all you want, while I would have to redesign the class.

Not quite. The first thing is that combat effectiveness should not be a holy grail of all class design any more than social-fu should be. Rather, taking the kinds of encounters and events that occur throughout an adventure as a whole, you might build your roles around those things and balance the classes not within individual encounters but within individual adventures.

And encounter is essentially a "scene", right? So, in any given scene, one character would get to shine. In some scenes, more than one character would get to shine because there's different stuff that needs done (firefight while a bomb needs to get defused, or whatever). And because everyone at the table is there to have a good time and enjoy the adventure as a whole -- and the Dm keeps some pacing rules in mind -- no one starts to whine and complain because they have to play a support/side role for 10 minutes.

 

[Mr. Patient]

And because everyone at the table is there to have a good time and enjoy the adventure as a whole -- and the Dm keeps some pacing rules in mind -- no one starts to whine and complain because they have to play a support/side role for 10 minutes.

It's not 10 minutes, though. I'd wager that for most groups -- it's certainly true for mine -- combat takes up at least half the actual real time spent at the table. It's hours. Combat effectiveness has to be the holy grail for designers, because it's where the vast majority of the rules actually apply, and where a huge chunk of the game table action takes place. Again, why can't an individual player just take a seemingly effective combatant and make him ineffective, if that's what he wants?

 

[The Little Raven]

And encounter is essentially a "scene", right? So, in any given scene, one character would get to shine. In some scenes, more than one character would get to shine because there's different stuff that needs done (firefight while a bomb needs to get defused, or whatever). And because everyone at the table is there to have a good time and enjoy the adventure as a whole -- and the Dm keeps some pacing rules in mind -- no one starts to whine and complain because they have to play a support/side role for 10 minutes.

And again, a bunch of us disagree that this philosophy is a good one. I don't want a single person at my table twiddling their thumbs while others are shining for an entire encounter (and your 10 minute number given for combat is ridiculously short for the standard combats in 3.X). I want everyone to shine all the time, but for different reasons. While your group may not care when someone is doing next to nothing for 30-40 minutes, but it seems your group seems to be in the minority.

And this still completely ignores the statement you quoted, which is that you can easily ignore the combat-effective capabilities of the character without changing a single thing, while I would have to rebuild the class to be effective, thus requiring me to do game design to get something so basic and simple as a combat effective character.