| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| The Sage |
Posted - 09 Jun 2003 : 06:38:10
These are the 3.5 tidbits taken from the EN World site, regarding Dragon Magazine #309 -
*There are no more exclusive skills. Anyone can take skill ranks in any skill.
*Magic missile is off of the Bard's spell list, and it mentions the have and inside track on Enchantment on Div. spells.
*The weight of some items have changed, small and large sized characters will notice the difference.
*Anyone can wield a weapon of any size, after a size penalty if you use a weapon made for someone of a different size.
*Since there are no more class exclusive skills, some skills require another skill to be effective. The example given was the new Wild Empathy skill will require ranks in diplomacy to work effectively.
*New feat: Craft Construct
*New condition: Sickened (-2 on all checks including weapon damage rolls)
*In the 3.5 MM bonus feats will be indicated with a superscript "b" after the feat name.
*New Spell: Crushing Despair (no details given other than it's a Bard and Wizard spell)
What do you all think of these changes?,
May your learning be free and unfettered
|
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| The Sage |
Posted - 20 Jun 2003 : 10:38:44
Different martial weapon skill...hmm...I like it.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 16:17:11
Another thought, which I'm sure has come up in many DMs' house rules, is the skill with a martial weapon. Why? Because the designers at WotC think all bards should be able to use rapiers? I think it's arbitrary. Taking that away would be a way to partially compensate for beefing up the bard song effects. Taking away armor and shield proficiency (if they have any) would be another way.
Bookwyrm, that is my normal personality. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 12:31:51
This is great Bookwyrm, and it is essentially the way I was thinking of going. I think, like I stated in my second-last post, and now again just like you said, determining what we want the Bard to represent should be the focus for the whole reworking.
I especially like the specialist Bard idea, because it allows those players who may not see these modifications as interesting, the availability to still stay with something close to what the Bard was.
Bookwyrm said -
quote:
Obviously, there's the singer. Then there's the one who can't sing, but can play. Or the one who is a gifted storyteller. You could even do a dancer. However, I can't think of any immediate attributes of each that would cause a player to pick one over another. However, if we do pick this type, there could really be no such thing as a non-specialist like there is for the wizard class. This sort of bard would have to specialize.
I think maybe a series of fan-created skills and class feats that specialise in these different specific areas of Bard disciplines maybe enough to provide the player with enough of a reason to select a Bard specialist that they prefer.
I have a few other suggestions, but I am now pressed for time. I will try and add some more thoughts later.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 19 Jun 2003 : 07:19:53
Hmm. When I saw your name as the last poster to this thread, Bran, I was sure I'd find a post saying "Why are you messing with this, blah blah blah . . . ." I say this because I've just been to two where you've been extremely argumentative and confrontational. Good thing you reminded me that that isn't your normal personality.
Alright, now that my quasi-appology is out of the way, let's go on to the new subject of this thread.
I think the idea of specialists in anything is a good idea. Of course, not all of them are necessary to spell out. I'll take an example. If I ever played a fighter (don't know if I will, since I don't know any groups to join that I could get to), I'd play one that speciallized in archery. I'd love to see a quantified archer specialty "school" but there're two problems with that. One, there're two prestige classes I know of that enhance an archer-character already. Second, what other kind of first-level fighter specialist would there be? There would have to be at least two before we could do that.
As well, I think that there should be a specialist-type for druids; after all, wouldn't sea-elves have druids? And, as you said, a druid might come from a dessert. Of course, that would be difficult to quantify, so perhaps, as you said, it should be left to the DM's own house rules and his/her negotiations with the player.
Okay, on to bards. I think to really work the idea of the specialist bard out right, you need to take a step back and think. What is a bard? First and formost, a bard is an entertainer, not a spellcaster. So, I think, we should design the specialty bardic schools (we need another word for it!) around the type of bard.
Obviously, there's the singer. Then there's the one who can't sing, but can play. Or the one who is a gifted storyteller. You could even do a dancer. However, I can't think of any immediate attributes of each that would cause a player to pick one over another. However, if we do pick this type, there could really be no such thing as a non-specialist like there is for the wizard class. This sort of bard would have to specialize.
Then for the spells. Perhaps this one would be closer to the wizard class's school-idea. The player of a bard would pick a certain way that bard would affect an audience. There're performers whose intent it is to awe and entertain. (Say, the Riverdance company.) Then there are those who want to rile things up, get people exited. (I can't think of any, but I'm sure there are a lot of bands like that.) Not necessarily bad, but not the kind that leads to a complacent audience. Or the opposite, the ones that're in the background, subtly shifting attitudes but not directly involving themselves.
What do you all think? |
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 21:44:52
Aaaagh, you quoted me before I could correct my typo!
This could lead to essentially "specialist bards", which I think is better anyway.
There could (maybe should?) be specialist rangers based on terrain type/geographic area, making the choices of perferred enemy and what kind of terrain in which he can live off the land more logical. If a ranger is from Calimshan and has never been north of Cormyr, taking yeti's as a perferred enemy makes little sense. Of course, I imagine most DMs impose limitations like this without needing it codified in a rulebook.
I could see a similar thing with druids: "I'm a desert druid. I have an affinity with 'hot' things." |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 19:43:27
branmakmuffin
quote:
Each bard picks of certain type of bard-appropriate magic (e.g. illusion, divination, enchantment) and his musical abilities mimic certain spells from that "school". I can't say right now what spells would be good choices. That's what play-testing is for.
That's a really interesting idea branmakmuffin. It also may make the whole reworking a little easier as well, since nearly all of the Bard's abilities and features could be crafted using the same general principle.
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 18:06:55
Since this is rapidly turning it the "How can we make a better bard?" topic, I'll chime in.
Instead of the standard bardic music abilities, meaning every bard has the same ones, the bard can choose a spell-like effect of appropriate type and level. You could make bard quasi-kits. Each bard picks a certain type of bard-appropriate magic (e.g. illusion, divination, enchantment) and his musical abilities mimic certain spells from that "school". I can't say right now what spells would be good choices. That's what play-testing is for.
I would also elminate general "bardic knowledge" and say that the bard needs to make his Knowledge <whatever> skill roll, but if he does, he knows more about subject X than a non-bard would. Obvioulsy, the DM can tack on additional DC levels to get to the "bardic knowledge" level about a certain thing.
Isn't it the case that only rogues can pick lock of DC 20 or higher? Assuming that's true, the bardic knowledge thing would work in a similar fashion. Say it's DC 20 for anyone using Knowledge History to know that Zankor the Orc lord used a mighty waraxe to slay Gurgolo the Hill Giant cheiftain in 1209. Ther DM adds 5 (or 10) to the DC to know that the waraxe's name is Krikaller (and let's say that's ancient Illuskan for "giant slayer") and that the weapon was buried with Zankor, and that only a bard has a chance to know this, no matter how high a non-bard's Knowledge History skill is. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 11:05:21
Well, I was thinking that we would probably have to start working from the basics of the class up all the way through stats, features and class abilities. I am willing to put my revised Rogue stats project on hold for this. I guess the first thing we should be asking ourselves is, what type of Bard class we want?. What is it about the current stats and class features that generate the opinions posted in this scroll.
I think it centers around what was originally said by Arion and myself. The Bardic Music ability seems to be the main problem.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 18 Jun 2003 : 07:23:13
I don't mind working on it. What did you have in mind? |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 21:02:19
Sounds like a wondrous plan....I'll get right on it and see what I can't come up with..... |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 08:05:10
If you are willing to work on something like this Bookwyrm, just let me know and we can get some idea rolling. Of course, ArionElenim, if you want to contribute something as well, perhaps we could really design something great.
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 06:06:53
I've been thinking of looking into the bard's spells and abilities myself. Maybe, between me and Sage, we can give the Wizards a run for their gold pieces. |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 17 Jun 2003 : 01:13:55
Almost sort of a spoiler (Condemnation)...!!!!
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
I've always felt that at higher levels, the bard's music should be just about able to convince anyone of anything. I think they should sort of become "rock stars" - idols of sorts as their skills improve, and their abilities as musicians/poets/etc should reflect this. As people-experts, spells such as "Know Alignment" should be available as abilities, along with stuff like "Hold Person" and honest to god "Charm" spells. This would make the bard much more effective.
An example of a well-done bard is be in the novel Condemnation.....the drow bard in there is very impressive, and her songs are incredibly powerful.....
Besides, the fascination ability is basically akin to jumping up and down and saying "look at me! woo-hoo, over here, Mr. Necromancer! Yo-hoo!", which I am pretty sure anyone could do....
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 16:29:32
I'm not entirely sure but I think there was mention of potential changes to the Bard class abilities made on the WotC D&D forums. There wasn't anything specific mentioned, so I really don't know.
Although I have always felt the Bardic Music ability is a little weak. I had considered revamping the entire mechanic and seeing what I come up with. Your Mass Charm suggestion is a good idea though. I agree with you, that it is a shame that the Bard's spells work more effectively than his actual class abilities. The Bardic Music should really be more powerful.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 16:18:43
I had originally taken the information from a statement made at EN World about DM #309. At first I had thought it was a little strange since I also thought that the magic missile spell was never listed on the Bard's spell list. I had just naturally assumed that some other piece of source material may have added it to the list.
|
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 16:15:47
Oh...
and does anyone know if Bardic Music is going to be revamped at all? I always thought it was embarassingly weak. The ability to give temporary hit dice and +2 to attack to a couple of other folks is the greatest power the bard's music has.
Why doesn't bardic music include Mass Charm type stuff? I dunno, I guess they think that Fascinate is enough....but it doesn't work if absolutely ANYTHING else is going on...
My twelfth level bard hasn't used his bardic music in combat for two years....there is simply no reason....his spells are much more effective, and the music just wastes time.....I use the music as roleplay stuff to enhance the sessions in that regard...they seem to have no other use...
Ah well..... |
| Arion Elenim |
Posted - 16 Jun 2003 : 16:09:55
Greetings,
Hey folks...uhm....
I've been playing the same bard for four years now....and..........
Magic Missle is NOT on the bard's spell list. Never has been in 3rd ed.....where are you folks getting this?....Unless I have a defective PH, I don't see it....anywhere....
While I trust the knowledge of the Senior Sages, you folks may have dropped the ball on this one.....
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 15:09:27
Actually Bookwyrm, you could be right there. It would seem impressive-looking, and for a Bard, appearances and displays are everything. But now that I actually realise it, Burning Hands isn't even on the Bard's spell list.
Perhaps then the Bard should simply retain all the 'showy' arcane spells - castings that look impressive but really don't do a whole lot of damage.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 14:28:01
Elrond, I will probably maintain the core 3e rules for the time being. I have the 3.5 core rulebooks already on order, and will most likely purchase them when they are shipped in. But as for incorporating the revised rules into my campaigns, well as a DM I have four separate 3e campaigns running at the moment, two of which are FR related (the other two are PS and DL), I will probably wait until all the existing campaigns are concluded. From there I will then start using the revised rules format. However this may be several months to at least a year. My existing DL campaign has been designed to take into account the soon to be released DLCS in August, and will most likely extend the campaign several months.
Good learning...
- The Sage of Perth: For all your Realms Lore needs
|
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 11:37:39
Perhaps you like that spell because it's a minor-level, but impressive-looking spell? I mean a sheet of flame shooting from your hand -- that's got to be something to see. I think that it would fit in with the bard's personality. However, I also stand by my belief that the bard should have some inflict spells as well. |
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 11:11:45
Ok Sorry Sage.
As a Player i WONT be using any of the 3.5 material for at least a year or two, and here is my reason: I have only recientally moved over to 3E and i dont particularly want to fork out another 60 quid for books (Whats that about 90 dollars?) Especially since i havent had much of a chance to Play 3E alot. SO in short no i won't be changing for a while at least. What about you Sage?
Hanx
Elrond |
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 07:32:36
BTW, I have noticed that a lot of responses, except Bran's first don't answer my second question about whether you as a gamer will be making any use of 3.5. Please refer to my third post for details about what I asked, as I would still like to know everybody opinions.
|
| The Sage |
Posted - 14 Jun 2003 : 07:29:05
Yes, that's correct Bran, that's exactly what I was thinking. I have always believed that in relation to the 3e Bard, to have access to offensive spells like magic missile, and the like would create the same kind of problems that sprang up with the 2e Bard. The classes are fairly balanced as it is now, to have another arcane spellcaster who casts powered damaging magic simply throws the balance out of alignment. The Bard should represent what he has always said to have been- a Jack-of-all-Trades, but master of none, much like how I envision Benjamin Franklin to be ( sorry about that, but I have been reading his autobiography of late).
The Bard should excel at a little of what every class has to offer, although I find myself thinking that perhaps the spell Burning Hands should be one offensive spell the Bard is actually allowed to keep. I really can't explain why, it just seems to fit. Anyway with regards to his other spells, I agree with Elrond's list. This is how I have always imagined the Bard would be like with regard to arcane spells.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 20:31:26
Elrond:
I agree wth your list: emotion-affecting spells, illusion spells, Divination spells, since they have to do with knowledge. I can't think of anything else off hand. I imagine this is what Sage had in mind when he said that spells like Magic Missile aren't really in keeping with the nature of the bard.
I was too quick to disagree with his comment. |
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 16:58:14
What woudl you say then Bran would be the best choice of spells to allow a Bard to have? I'd say spells that change the condition of his oponent, or emotion spells. I would also say that he should have a lot of Divining spells and protection spells. Enchantment spells would be high on my list and perhaps a few selected illusion spells. Any thoughts?
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 16:48:47
Sage (and Elrond):
Now that I think about it, perhaps you're right. A bard isn't supposed to be a quasi-mage/thief (as I complain he was in 2e). I take back what I said in my first response about it being arbitrary to take damage-causing spells away from bards. Now I see that it makes sense. |
| Elrond Half Elven |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 16:48:15
Eh Bran, i kind of thought that because Magic Missile was taken away from the bard, then he would have fewer offensive magic spells. I argee with Bookwyrm, a bard should have a number of low-level offensive spells. I feel however that he should have the ability to cast magic missile. Perhaps Wizard of the Coast feel that Magic Missile is so popular that it is overused? Almost every mmage character i have seen or played has it! lol 
Hanx
Elrond |
| Bookwyrm |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 16:19:16
Well, he ought to have some. Some sort of low-level offensive spell . . . not magic missile (which, by the way, I can't find on a bard spell list anyway), but how about inflict spells? |
| The Sage |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 13:24:20
I certainly hope that is the actual case. I have always thought that the Bard should have very little in the way of damaging-causing spells. To me it has never sat well with the whole Bard class structure.
May all your learning be free and unfettered
|
| branmakmuffin |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 00:54:38
Elrond:
Is it true then that they took some (or all?) damage-causing spells away from bards? You're not going off my assumption, are you, as my comment was pure conjecture? |
|
|
