NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7850378" data-attributes="member: 6750235">My list followed the bard-as-historian as a common trait.  I thought you might like that list.As for bardic lore, 1e had an odd dual class progression requirement but the original bard preceding it used a similar table as a stand alone class.  That 1e bard was the only class with any lore skills.  Magic-users needed to rely on spells.The lore skill also granted legendary knowledge regardless of source, so it would cover religion and gods or outer plane locations in what it encompassed, and it included identifying magic item by the arcane sigils on them.  It was more encompassing than just history.2e bard got local history and additionally could identify magic items.  2e was more restrictive than 1e but still more than mages.  There was an optional proficiency system and this was in addition to those options.  Bards had the choice of any non-weapon proficiency available to mages in that edition as well.3e bardic knowledge was more like 1e bardic lore in that it encompassed items or places that might normally be covered by other knowledge skills.  It was additional to local history and local history gave a synergy bonus to it.In all 3 cases there was flavor in reading arcane sigils on the magic items, which is definitely arcana.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />It was 3e where we saw skill embraced and that's when wizards were given skills for arcane knowledge, but bards were given the same skills.  Those 2 classes were the only 2 classes who were granted all knowledge skills but bards had bardic knowledge on top of all knowledge skills.In those editions bards had the same knowledge as wizards / mages / magic users plus more.  Always.  It was the same option and the bard bonuses on top.  There's nothing in those editions to indicate those classes have anything but a disadvantage compared to bards when it comes to knowledge in general or an advantage on the specific choices.As for history, the earliest bards were considered seers, prophets, and magicians.  They all had religious roles in addition to maintaining history.  The fili splitting in orders had druids for priesthood but bards were still expected be capable of giving religious knowledge existing outside of the priest role.  Oral tradition passed all knowledge down regardless of where it would be classified in D&D, which is where artificial separation occurs over oral tradition.It's not like they separated different legends and said, "no the wrong kind of legend Cu.  Send in Bae and we'll teach him that legend instead.  Because class niche protection."  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />D&D combines a lot of different tropes under the bard umbrella.  I think fili.  The class covers more and the most common traits are history, legend (regardless which lore skill D&D would place it), and teaching or advising.  Even the biwa hoshi curing plagues and cleansing spirits across Japan is teaching and maintaining knowledge through epics, and that's a flavor of bard clearly moving away from European influence.My perception stems from the oral tradition common to bard equivalents in various cultures.</blockquote>

Verification