| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 21 Feb 2019 : 06:34:53
Once upon a time in the Realms Bards were a greatly feared group of mighty individuals.
In modern games Bards aren't seen as melee combatants very often...and so such groups as the Harpers are lessened for it I think.
In 1e AD&D and "Ye Ol' Grey Box" to be a Bard you had already been a fighter of at least 5th level (back when that meant something) and a thief of at least 5th level. Once a character obtained their bardic abilities they were gaining druidic powers too...
Later editions of the game changed Bards a great deal, and I'm not sure this was the best thing to do for the various groups/individuals that had previously been known as powerful warriors who could don plate armor for a battle, then later don leather armor to sneak into the enemy camp and still later hunt down a fleeing foe in the wilderness.
Has anyone else felt the loss of these stalwarts of the original Forgotten Realms? One of my own characters (a Fighter turned Thief on his way to Bard) essentially would be nothing like what he originally was.
Does anyone know of a Bardic "conversion" of some sort for the new 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons that is more in line with their more combat/wilderness orientation that existed prior to 2e AD&D when they became arcane casters without their former combat abilities? |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Mar 2019 : 15:55:32
quote:
Did balancing through alignment ever work?
I guess Cavalier's "you have to charge the biggest baddest enemy you see" might affect gameplay, but I am not so sure about something like "don't kill innocent people."
What about that amoral necromancer or that bloodsucking vampire who falls to his knees and begs you to show mercy? What if that predatory bandit sincerely promises to redeem himself, maybe takes care of the local orc problem, donates some gold to the temple, and helps out a starving family? A savvy PC may not be entirely convinced, especially when a noxious repeat-offender villain appears to just be stalling for time or has something to gain from his apparent good deeds. But a savvy DM will have an endless supply of cheap tricks to test a PC's mettle and make him prove he can prevail without breaking the code ... and each incident must be treated seriously if the character is played in character.
A Paladin or a Cavalier doesn't get very far by being Lawful Stupid - he must in fact meet certain minimum Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma requirements - but he must still worry about his thoughts and words and actions, how they will serve his deity, how his brothers in the order/temple will judge him, how his deity will judge him. He must tithe and serve. He must always face down evil without ever faltering in his faith. He can be stripped of his standing (and his powers) at any time for any perceived transgression. He must fully atone for his misdeeds - or even for the misdeeds of others - unless he is not given that option.
A Fighter doesn't have to worry about his dirty words and his dirty deeds, he can exploit any advantage and any opportunity available. He can be a brutally merciless killer or he can be a coward who snipes from ambush then runs from threats - all that really matters is that he wins the glory and he survives the day - civilized behaviour and lofty piety to a higher power won't accomplish anything useful if they get you killed. The Paladin wields the righteous power of his god but the Fighter wields a sharp blade and never lets rarefied things distract him from his business of knowing exactly how and where that blade will do the most "good" in a fight. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 09 Mar 2019 : 15:17:50
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander Clark
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
they didn't have alignment restrictions, they didn't have to observe restrictive codes of behaviour/religion/etc
Did balancing through alignment ever work?
I guess Cavalier's "you have to charge the biggest baddest enemy you see" might affect gameplay, but I am not so sure about something like "don't kill innocent people."
Maybe in the earlier versions where Paladins were simply Fighter "Plus" (meaning you got what the Fighter got AND then some) so it went well with the whole "with great power comes great responsibility" mantra. I didn't play 2E long enough to get into the nitty gritty of Catch-22s DMs apparently hit Paladin classes hard with back in the day.
For 3e/3.5/PF, the answer is no. Alignment restrictions by this point largely were irrelevant to Game-play balance. For one, Paladins are bad in 3.0/3.5 as were Monks too. Some people thought back then that it would be CRAZY OP to allow a Paladin to smite with Rage going on (it isn't, not by a mile). By 3e, balance was simply an afterthought by the designers once the party his mid-levels (10+) and I'm being generous.
4e removed all alignment restrictions and the days I play it, no one goes off kilter as a Paladin to burn down orphanages. I've had several Pally players role-play exceptionally well under the Lawful Good alignment and DIDN'T feel the need to play it Lawful Stupid or "I Charge the bad guy!" every time.
5e kept alignment restrictions out of the game on mechanical technicalities and so you don't see "This class must be X,Y,Z alignment" but the wording strongly pushes certain expectations that the DM would do well to throw into their game for flavor. Currently there are no hard-rules for a Paladin to fall from grace or what happens if a Monk turns Chaotic or if a Bard becomes Lawful. It's up to the DM to interpret that for their own table. |
| Alexander Clark |
Posted - 09 Mar 2019 : 13:55:47
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
they didn't have alignment restrictions, they didn't have to observe restrictive codes of behaviour/religion/etc
Did balancing through alignment ever work?
I guess Cavalier's "you have to charge the biggest baddest enemy you see" might affect gameplay, but I am not so sure about something like "don't kill innocent people." |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 09 Mar 2019 : 13:09:41
AD&D did make things a little less uneven. It's true that if you rolled enough high stats then you could qualify for a "special" (and usually "optional") class and if you rolled lesser stats then you could only qualify for "ordinary" classes. But it turns out that the simple classes (basic Cleric, Fighter, Magic-User, Thief) had advantages over the more complex classes - they could choose from a wider pool of proficiency and spell options, they could choose to focus on specialization options, they didn't have to observe any pre-allocated paths, they didn't have alignment restrictions, they didn't have to observe restrictive codes of behaviour/religion/etc, they could use many more magical items (which tended to provide lots of raw bonuses), and they required significantly less XP to advance faster. All told, the basic classes had access to all sorts of little advantages which could add up to make a character with "average" stats into a tough match vs one with "awesome" stats.
1E PHB actually recommended that PCs have at least two exceptional stats (at 15+). 1E UE also recommended "exceptional" CON (at 15+). And 1E DMG recommended the DM allows some fudging/adjustments or re-rolls if a player simply can't roll up the required stats for a desired class or race. After all, the PCs are supposed to be reasonably heroic sorts and the object of the game is for everybody to have fun.
Some groups considered characters without a bunch of 18s "unplayable", other groups emphasized role-playing over roll-playing and viewed lower stats as a rewarding and character-defining challenge, it seems like every group had some sort of house rules to tailor character generation in a way which was reasonably fair and equal for everyone. The classic "I fall on my sword, I have to roll a new character" is just a waste of time which can be avoided. Point-buy is indeed better for some groups but other groups often do better without being constrained by it. There's good reason why every D&D edition which uses point-buy systems also offers rules and alternate systems for random stat generation. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 09 Mar 2019 : 03:52:09
I think I covered it with a simple:
quote:
If you don't like your character for whatever reason, then talk to your DM...nothing says D&D like rolling another character.
|
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 09 Mar 2019 : 00:28:51
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Fine with me if you disagree. Odd logic though.
If someone wins the lottery, should everyone else be upset about it and begrudge the winner their new wealth?
If you don't like your character for whatever reason, then talk to your DM...nothing says D&D like rolling another character.
Interesting you go with the lottery analogy. Creating a character is not a disposable experience like playing a scratch ticket. My goal as a DM has and always will be to have a table full of players that are all equally having fun, not to celebrate a single "lottery winner" while the rest have to make due with normal characters that would ordinarily be fine, but now look substandard by virtue of comparison. Here's where you counter with, "But it can be really fun to ROLEPLAY a weaker character!" Is it? For a little while maybe. How about 2 years into the game when you struggle to defeat a kobold, but Jimmy's psionic half-dragon ninja werewolf can slaughter 40 ogres in a round? I'm not saying it should be a competition among the players. But there has to be some kind of level playing field so one guy with the superstar character doesn't hog the spotlight the entire time.
If your answer is simply to re-roll the character - therein lies some pitfalls as well. If a DM allows infinite re-rolls, won't everyone have a paladin or bard or ranger? A monkey at a typewriter will eventually pop out Shakespeare and all that. Your "solution" devalues your own initial argument, in that a "special" class is no longer special by definition if all 6 players at the table have one.
Lastly, my players spend several weeks before the first session crafting their character - the name, the history/backstory, how they fit in with the region, possible pre-existing relationships with other party members, etc. So they show up on creation night, have a terrible streak of luck, and then... what? Throw away weeks of design and start anew? Or just keep throwing away bad characters and renaming the new one with the exact same name and history until you get it right? How is that any better than a point-buy system that simply lets you make what you want to play right off the bat? If you want players to keep re-rolling until they get a satisfying character, why throw away an entire session or multiple sessions just to get to the starting line? As a DM, do you have a point where you cut them off from more re-rolls? 65 character sheets? 92? 217? Or do you make them "play" the failed character out until they get killed before they can come back with a new character? Doesn't that just inspire really terrible play as the bad rollers act foolishly, seeking suicide?
Odd logic, indeed.
P.S. I get the nostalgia factor of doing it how we used to back in the day. I really do. But it's rife with downsides. I just can't look at a player who has been dreaming of playing a specific character type for months and then telling him NOPE, sorry dude, the dice have spoken and you have to play something completely different because your character is too [weak/slow/dumb/ugly/etc] to meet the pre-requisites of what you envisioned. Better luck next time!
The notion that things were better in ye olden days and that Gygax nailed every aspect of the game perfectly on the first try is not to my taste. There are classic elements of the game, and there are things that have changed for the better over the years. It's like when I go back and play old Atari or 8-bit Sega/Nintendo games that were so amazing in my memory. Sometimes they live up to the hype and withstand the test of time. Other times they are just needlessly frustrating, clunky, or downright terrible and I realize my nostalgia is what glossed them over in my mind. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 07 Mar 2019 : 04:45:10
There were a LOT of ways to improve ability scores, as long a s DM was game to that - in my experience, original rolled scores rarely were permanent.
Among the optional rules I liked were the ability to improve STR, CON, and WIS over time. (I can't remember where that was from - maybe a dragon or dungeon article) It reflected physical training and or learning from experience as you leveled up. Of course a warrior who swings a big heavy sword all day will get stronger over time, etc.
Then there was always the magic option. So many of the published adventures had choices that would give you +1 to an attribute.
|
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Mar 2019 : 12:50:26
I had players roll 18d6 then arrange the dice any way they liked - each of these dice had a fixed value once rolled but any number of these dice could be moved or allocated to any of the six ability scores (as long as each of the six ability scores had a total value from 3 to 18).
You'd expect a lot of big stats but it's actually not that easy because you need to roll dice which add up to exactly 16, 17, 18. Players who wanted extremely high stats usually had to accept some extremely low stats - and some players always automatically dump-stat Charisma - but it turns out that's not viable in gaming where all six ability scores are constantly given equivalent importance. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 06 Mar 2019 : 03:18:43
My bottom line in AD&D is 4d6 drop the lowest. Whether it is "in order rolled" or "arrange to taste" depends on the crowd.
I'll likely run my 5e game the same way. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 06 Mar 2019 : 03:15:38
quote:
Originally posted by VikingLegion
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I agree, in 1e some classes were very potent...a result of lucky dice rolling to play exceptional characters.
Hell, even playing a Ranger was a fortunate and rare occurrence for a player...probably why I loved playing a ranger so much!
Of course the "lowly" Bard took serious dice rolls to get to play:
A minimum of 15 Strength as a fighter with a 17 Dexterity so that you could dual class to thief later; and that followed by a minimum at the time becoming a Bard of 15 Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma...on top of a minimum 12 Intelligence and 10 Constitution.
If someone managed to roll 17, 15, 15, 15, 12, 10 on 3d6 then hells yes they deserved a powerful class like Bard!
I can't possibly disagree any stronger with everything you typed. In your scenario, one bad night on the dice, no... one bad *minute* on the dice during character creation night dooms you to years and years of not being able to play the character you were hoping for. Meanwhile, the DM's little brother, or best friend, or girlfriend who wants to try the game out shows up an hour late, pulls out their sheet, and miraculously has ALL the pre-requisites for their super-powered class, because they did their character creation one-on-one with the DM the night before. No honest, they did!
The entire trajectory of your character arc over the course of several RL *years* should not be determined in the first 30 seconds of session one. That is hot garbage. This is not a case of "millennial entitlement" speaking. It is simply a desire to see every player at the table able to utilize the same resources to have fun, not 1 or 2 dominating the rest of the peasants. If you plant on countering with "No, it can be fun to play a character with poor stats", sure, maybe for a session or three as a gimmick. But not if you plan to invest years into it and are railroaded into playing something completely against the archetype/name/role/backstory you had brewing in your head before sitting down to roll those fateful dice. A point-pool system is the only method I will ever enforce on my players. There will be thousands of opportunities for the players to cry foul or favoritism over the course of the campaign, let's not start off Night One with it.
Fine with me if you disagree. Odd logic though.
If someone wins the lottery, should everyone else be upset about it and begrudge the winner their new wealth?
If you don't like your character for whatever reason, then talk to your DM...nothing says D&D like rolling another character. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Mar 2019 : 01:31:12
Maybe I got a different 1e DMG but on PG. 11 mine says
Method I: All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled, and the lowest die (or one of the lower) is discarded.
Prior to this, it went on to say: As D&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession which he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly
playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancy - which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters: then goes on to mention methods I - VI.
Now, I unfortunately cant speak from experience playing 1e as I never had a DM run it for me and my group is firmly enmeshed with WOTC versions of D&D, though my AD&D 2e experiences all had us roll 4d6, drop the lowest and assign where we want. You weren't guaranteed a 17 in Charisma for the vaunted Paladin or a 15 for the Bard but it exactly wasn't uncommon either. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 06 Mar 2019 : 00:28:22
Merits and demerits of various character stat generation systems aside, 1E bards always used 1E rules.
Method I (3d6 per stat, in order rolled, no mods) was the assumed default. Methods II-IV (and Method V) basically all generated higher overall or specific stats to accommodate different groups and playstyles.
Rolling dice was part of the fun and official point-buy systems didn't even exist until "2.5E" and 3E onwards.
Maybe point-buy is better or more fair or less ridiculous, maybe not. But people had fun playing 1E, with and without any bards. There never seemed to be a shortage of bards, paladins, rangers, druids, or other classes with high stat reqs. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 22:49:37
quote:
Originally posted by VikingLegion
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I agree, in 1e some classes were very potent...a result of lucky dice rolling to play exceptional characters.
Hell, even playing a Ranger was a fortunate and rare occurrence for a player...probably why I loved playing a ranger so much!
Of course the "lowly" Bard took serious dice rolls to get to play:
A minimum of 15 Strength as a fighter with a 17 Dexterity so that you could dual class to thief later; and that followed by a minimum at the time becoming a Bard of 15 Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma...on top of a minimum 12 Intelligence and 10 Constitution.
If someone managed to roll 17, 15, 15, 15, 12, 10 on 3d6 then hells yes they deserved a powerful class like Bard!
I can't possibly disagree any stronger with everything you typed. In your scenario, one bad night on the dice, no... one bad *minute* on the dice during character creation night dooms you to years and years of not being able to play the character you were hoping for. Meanwhile, the DM's little brother, or best friend, or girlfriend who wants to try the game out shows up an hour late, pulls out their sheet, and miraculously has ALL the pre-requisites for their super-powered class, because they did their character creation one-on-one with the DM the night before. No honest, they did!
The entire trajectory of your character arc over the course of several RL *years* should not be determined in the first 30 seconds of session one. That is hot garbage. This is not a case of "millennial entitlement" speaking. It is simply a desire to see every player at the table able to utilize the same resources to have fun, not 1 or 2 dominating the rest of the peasants. If you plant on countering with "No, it can be fun to play a character with poor stats", sure, maybe for a session or three as a gimmick. But not if you plan to invest years into it and are railroaded into playing something completely against the archetype/name/role/backstory you had brewing in your head before sitting down to roll those fateful dice. A point-pool system is the only method I will ever enforce on my players. There will be thousands of opportunities for the players to cry foul or favoritism over the course of the campaign, let's not start off Night One with it.
When I DM, yep, point buy is the way its done. Mainly because I also don't want to have the reverse ("no, I honestly rolled this at the house... 4 18's and 2 16's"). All my recent DM's (which by the way, in all honesty, I'm on about 2 years since I've had a group) have wanted us to roll. Not against it mind you, but I can appreciate point buy as a DM, and I have no problem with it as a player. That being said, when I DO DO point buy, its general with more points than what the rulebooks say. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 22:48:09
quote:
Originally posted by VikingLegion
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I agree, in 1e some classes were very potent...a result of lucky dice rolling to play exceptional characters.
Hell, even playing a Ranger was a fortunate and rare occurrence for a player...probably why I loved playing a ranger so much!
Of course the "lowly" Bard took serious dice rolls to get to play:
A minimum of 15 Strength as a fighter with a 17 Dexterity so that you could dual class to thief later; and that followed by a minimum at the time becoming a Bard of 15 Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma...on top of a minimum 12 Intelligence and 10 Constitution.
If someone managed to roll 17, 15, 15, 15, 12, 10 on 3d6 then hells yes they deserved a powerful class like Bard!
I can't possibly disagree any stronger with everything you typed. In your scenario, one bad night on the dice, no... one bad *minute* on the dice during character creation night dooms you to years and years of not being able to play the character you were hoping for. Meanwhile, the DM's little brother, or best friend, or girlfriend who wants to try the game out shows up an hour late, pulls out their sheet, and miraculously has ALL the pre-requisites for their super-powered class, because they did their character creation one-on-one with the DM the night before. No honest, they did!
The entire trajectory of your character arc over the course of several RL *years* should not be determined in the first 30 seconds of session one. That is hot garbage. This is not a case of "millennial entitlement" speaking. It is simply a desire to see every player at the table able to utilize the same resources to have fun, not 1 or 2 dominating the rest of the peasants. If you plant on countering with "No, it can be fun to play a character with poor stats", sure, maybe for a session or three as a gimmick. But not if you plan to invest years into it and are railroaded into playing something completely against the archetype/name/role/backstory you had brewing in your head before sitting down to roll those fateful dice. A point-pool system is the only method I will ever enforce on my players. There will be thousands of opportunities for the players to cry foul or favoritism over the course of the campaign, let's not start off Night One with it.
When I DM, yep, point buy is the way its done. Mainly because I also don't want to have the reverse ("no, I honestly rolled this at the house... 4 18's and 2 16's"). All my recent DM's (which by the way, in all honesty, I'm on about 2 years since I've had a group) have wanted us to roll. Not against it mind you, but I can appreciate point buy as a DM, and I have no problem with it as a player. That being said, when I DO DO point buy, its general with more points than what the rulebooks say. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 21:53:19
I almost always allow my players to choose their creation method. They can take the point buy option or roll 4d6 and drop the lowest. Usually they get one set of rolls (barring anything abysmal like the total amount of points total less than 20 points etc.) Same goes for things like HP per level (except 4e, where it's fixed).
I feel the onus for creative process lies with the person who's going to be playing that character for the long haul of a campaign. I wouldn't want someone who's bored at the table because they rolled poorly and had to settle for say, a wizard with bad AC/HP, simply because they only got one good score and the wizard is really the only one class that is single ability dependant (aka SAD).
My only exception is for people who make characters away from the table at session 0. They have to use point buy and use only source material for their options. It's more for fairness sake and so I can quickly determine what's going on with their character. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 21:00:30
The one thing about take dice as rolled is that the player gets to act different rolls. One time roll a fighter as best choice, next time maybe a thief etc. The player gets to act (Play different roles) more as opposed to I always want to be a Paladin (preferred class) and must have the rolls to do that.
Some like to diversity offered by chance, others prefer the tested and true.
Neither is the correct answer for a player or DM, the overall purpose is to have an enjoyable game experience. Three dice in order was hard to get playable character so reroll often indicated, 4 drop lowest in order generally provided a playable class. Assigning rolls (3 or 4) or point buy allowed the player option to choose most times. Use what works best for your game. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 03:02:14
I've come to like the point-buy system, myself, but there's still something fun about rolling up a character. My last couple of DMs that wanted dice rolls were generous; one was 4d6, drop the lowest, 7 or 8 times, drop the lowest, and make two sets of stats -- then pick the one you like and arrange it however you want. Another basically said to keep rolling sets of 6 or 7 until you had a good set.
One of my all-time favorite characters was from a single set of 4d6/drop the lowest stats. As I was staring at this goofy range of stats, wondering what I could do, my DM said "You could play a minotaur!" I ran and grabbed my friend's Humanoids Handbook and proceeded to flesh out a character that remains a fave, 25 years later.
|
| VikingLegion |
Posted - 05 Mar 2019 : 00:58:35
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I agree, in 1e some classes were very potent...a result of lucky dice rolling to play exceptional characters.
Hell, even playing a Ranger was a fortunate and rare occurrence for a player...probably why I loved playing a ranger so much!
Of course the "lowly" Bard took serious dice rolls to get to play:
A minimum of 15 Strength as a fighter with a 17 Dexterity so that you could dual class to thief later; and that followed by a minimum at the time becoming a Bard of 15 Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma...on top of a minimum 12 Intelligence and 10 Constitution.
If someone managed to roll 17, 15, 15, 15, 12, 10 on 3d6 then hells yes they deserved a powerful class like Bard!
I can't possibly disagree any stronger with everything you typed. In your scenario, one bad night on the dice, no... one bad *minute* on the dice during character creation night dooms you to years and years of not being able to play the character you were hoping for. Meanwhile, the DM's little brother, or best friend, or girlfriend who wants to try the game out shows up an hour late, pulls out their sheet, and miraculously has ALL the pre-requisites for their super-powered class, because they did their character creation one-on-one with the DM the night before. No honest, they did!
The entire trajectory of your character arc over the course of several RL *years* should not be determined in the first 30 seconds of session one. That is hot garbage. This is not a case of "millennial entitlement" speaking. It is simply a desire to see every player at the table able to utilize the same resources to have fun, not 1 or 2 dominating the rest of the peasants. If you plant on countering with "No, it can be fun to play a character with poor stats", sure, maybe for a session or three as a gimmick. But not if you plan to invest years into it and are railroaded into playing something completely against the archetype/name/role/backstory you had brewing in your head before sitting down to roll those fateful dice. A point-pool system is the only method I will ever enforce on my players. There will be thousands of opportunities for the players to cry foul or favoritism over the course of the campaign, let's not start off Night One with it. |
| Varl |
Posted - 04 Mar 2019 : 16:33:50
I don't know how other editions treated the bard, but if there's one thing I think bards should have that they never really acquired as far as I know, is song and music magic. Give them some fighting ability, some rogue abilities etc., but ideally IMO, it would be unique magic that sets the bard apart from all the other classes as well as from the amalgam the bard has become.
Look at the cover of Crypt of the Shadowking. The bard there is playing his instrument and invoking (hopefully) a unique spell from the flute that will (again, hopefully) repel the undead, destroy the undead or perhaps even calm that undead creature. [And no, I haven't read the novel yet, so please no spoilers]. That picture has always inspired me whenever someone asks "What is a bard?"
Bards IMO need to be unique as a class again. The abilities they can draw on through music and song needs to be spells/powers no other class can access, similar to the powers accessible by the psionicist. It's the only way to get the bard out of the amalgamated mess it's sunk into. Give them melee abilities, rogue skills, whatever if you wish, but their focus should always be on the power of music and song. It's what they do best. |
| The Masked Mage |
Posted - 04 Mar 2019 : 04:45:06
Certainly - I originally played a bard, long ago. After they were changed they became pretty much useless in game terms. The tiny spells they eventually learned never balanced out their lack of fighter skills or thief's abilities. |
| Jaz660 |
Posted - 03 Mar 2019 : 23:24:52
I tend to think of bards more as massive social media peddlers , journalists , comics or performers , documentary makers in modern context. That’s a massive group pushing opinions in a low information age by comparison with little ability to verify truth. So bards as folk of power from any class even before melee or spellpowers. Using modern analogies also helped end bard pigeon holing when I considered the class. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 24 Feb 2019 : 05:20:01
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Every rules edition has its own peculiar quirks and balance issues and gamebreaking exploits. This example was probably abusing technicalities, the letter and not the spirit of the rules. To be honest, it's not even that bad if the PCs and their NPCs adversaries use the same rules, and some groups prefer epic godlike level 99+ playstyles anyhow (which isn't my thing but if they're into it then more power to them.)
Yep, you're right. Usually it's abuse and deviation from the spirit of the game that causes the significant brokenness.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
3E gave us Pun-Pun and so much more.
oh man, there's
so much there. Clerics that can perpetuate 24-hr spells, core Druids, Cheater of Mystra, dragoon charger, enervator (literally can drop someone 17 levels with 5th and 4th level spell slot), etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
4E and 5E will have gamebreakers, too, even if they haven't yet been discovered.
I'll say this about the latter two editions, the investment in Char-Op isn't nearly as rewarding as it was in 3e and before. 4e does have it's issues, namely Rangers being crazy powerful and dealing a ton of damage vs more casual strikers like the Avenger or even Barbarians. Warlords take the cake for being the best Leaders as they can dish out free attacks all day long. In paragon tier they're letting Rangers use Twin Strike 2-3 times per ROUND (adding their Hunter's Quarry damage too). Wizards were infamous for the Stunlock build which just tells an enemy "nope, no turns for you for 2, 3, 4 rounds". But again, these aren't world destroying capabilities. No one is killing Gods, destroying the world, causing cataclysmic events, etc.
5e, I honestly don't have a clue? I have zero desire to break the game. I think most works fairly evenly assuming the DM isn't letting the PCs take too many short rests thus giving classes that rely on that mechanic extra oomph (and most classes have some short rest gimmick). Ive seen people say Paladin/Sorcerer is crazy since they can use Sorcerer slots for Smite (which now triggers after the attack is resolved, thus no expended slots for misses). I do believe that is RAI tho. |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 17:50:17
quote:
I don't know much about 1e but that sounds pretty ridiculous. I mean isn't one of the big things about early D&D disrupting Spellcasting as a balance point?
Every rules edition has its own peculiar quirks and balance issues and gamebreaking exploits. This example was probably abusing technicalities, the letter and not the spirit of the rules. To be honest, it's not even that bad if the PCs and their NPCs adversaries use the same rules, and some groups prefer epic godlike level 99+ playstyles anyhow (which isn't my thing but if they're into it then more power to them.)
1E spells keep gaining damage dice every level without limit and PCs could "hold" spells ready indefinitely (provided they weren't struck, distracted, etc).
2E was broken in many places where enthusiastic new-edition rewrites and lazy old-edition copypasta overlapped.
3E gave us Pun-Pun and so much more.
4E and 5E will have gamebreakers, too, even if they haven't yet been discovered. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 16:22:09
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
One of the most ridiculous powergaming concepts I ever heard was from a 1E player. His group had a house rule that allowed them to cast multiple magic missiles, but hold them in reserve, until later... He actually described it as firing off a rack of missiles, because there would be so many of them held and then fired at once.
I don't know much about 1e but that sounds pretty ridiculous. I mean isn't one of the big things about early D&D disrupting Spellcasting as a balance point?
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
The same guy also bragged about how his 10th level paladin could easily kill a dragon -- even a great wyrm! -- by himself, and he was genuinely puzzled when I responded with "not if I was running the dragon." 
Haha I made that mistake once. In 3.5 I had a 12th level Paladin (über-charger) rush in to kill the BBEG and as I leapt in with a charging smite and Rhino's Rush spell....it ended up being an illusion in front of a pit trap. *derp*. Never made the blind-charge decision again lol. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 15:24:53
One of the most ridiculous powergaming concepts I ever heard was from a 1E player. His group had a house rule that allowed them to cast multiple magic missiles, but hold them in reserve, until later... He actually described it as firing off a rack of missiles, because there would be so many of them held and then fired at once.
The same guy also bragged about how his 10th level paladin could easily kill a dragon -- even a great wyrm! -- by himself, and he was genuinely puzzled when I responded with "not if I was running the dragon." |
| Ayrik |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 13:24:11
Gygaxian D&D had plenty of entitled, arrogant, powergaming, munchkin players as well - along with plenty of gullible, blundering, weak, biased DMs who tolerated them - it's not at all a new thing exclusive to new players and to new D&D.
1E UE even offered "Method V" for generating ability scores (for human PCs only). The ridiculous number of dice being rolled would almost assured that stat requirements for the desired class (and a bunch of other classes) would easily be met. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 06:17:54
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But as Diffan pointed out, we no longer live in a "rewards based on merit" culture. Today's players 'want ALL the toys, all the time", and "it isn't fair" if someone else can have something you can't. Its why D&D (as it currently stands) no longer holds my interest. Come to think of it, its why interacting with other human beings no longer holds my interest. 
Since when did rolling luckily for stats = merit in D&D? The few times I played AD&D 2e we usually rolled 4d6, drop the lowest and assign where you want to. Heck the 1e DMG even says this is a clearly viable option to generate stats. So the possibility of getting that vaunted 17 in Charisma wasn't nearly all that impossible.
Also, we're talking about a game that most people want to share and partake in what happens. This is largely why I quit DM'ing mid- to late-levels of 3.5 (and won't touch pathfinder) because the games balance was ridiculous. Yep, even running a "core only" game meant that casters by a specific level completely dwarfed everyone else. The laser-focus on balance in the later two editions was, IMO, directly related to 3e's complete lack of any of it.
As for the initial post, really nothing's stopping you from going Fighter 5/ Rogue 5/ Bard 10 to capture that feeling. Is it because this path isn't forced as the only way to bard-hood? To me, to get the sense of what you want - Fighter (champion) 5/ Rogue (thief) 5/ Bard (college of swords) 10. Take the Outlander background so you can have skills like Survival (wilderness tracking especially) and it's Jack of All Trades feature really help shore up any skill deficiencies they might have.
So with this a character can:
1) wear all armors and wield all weapons.
2) Get Expertise via the Rogue feature and allow you to make two of your proficient skills great, then twice again with the Bard.
3) Jack of All trades makes skills your not proficient with good.
4) Getting the Skilled Feat gives you proficiency with 3 more skills of your choice.
5) You get healing via Bard spells and the Fighter's second wind.
6) You can make multiple attacks per turn via Fighter's Extra Attack feature plus a Fighting Style (two with College of Swords) and you get a critical hit on all 19 rolls with a weapon.
7) You get at-will cantrips that can be used in a variety of combat and non-combat ways.
8) Lastly you get up to 5th level spells, knowing a total of 14 and with Magical Secrets, you can select two spells from a whole different class and add them to your bard class (using Charisma as your casting ability).
So what's this again about Bards losing their mighty status? I'm not entirely sure what one is really looking for here? ^^This^^ hits most of the notes you were trying to get yes? |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 02:48:34
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
But as Diffan pointed out, we no longer live in a "rewards based on merit" culture. Today's players 'want ALL the toys, all the time", and "it isn't fair" if someone else can have something you can't. Its why D&D (as it currently stands) no longer holds my interest. Come to think of it, its why interacting with other human beings no longer holds my interest.
Sad eh?
It is honestly one of the reasons I still play 1e/2e. When a party meets a Paladin, Ranger etc they know they are meeting someone special.
Bards doubly so.
"You mean Gartor Tenblades is a Bard?! We need to tread carefully folks!"
Little does the party know that their patron, Torgar of the Tengold Tavern and Inn is one and the same! |
| Markustay |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 02:23:14
But as Diffan pointed out, we no longer live in a "rewards based on merit" culture. Today's players 'want ALL the toys, all the time", and "it isn't fair" if someone else can have something you can't. Its why D&D (as it currently stands) no longer holds my interest. Come to think of it, its why interacting with other human beings no longer holds my interest. |
| Dalor Darden |
Posted - 23 Feb 2019 : 00:45:58
I agree, in 1e some classes were very potent...a result of lucky dice rolling to play exceptional characters.
Hell, even playing a Ranger was a fortunate and rare occurrence for a player...probably why I loved playing a ranger so much!
Of course the "lowly" Bard took serious dice rolls to get to play:
A minimum of 15 Strength as a fighter with a 17 Dexterity so that you could dual class to thief later; and that followed by a minimum at the time becoming a Bard of 15 Strength, Wisdom, Dexterity and Charisma...on top of a minimum 12 Intelligence and 10 Constitution.
If someone managed to roll 17, 15, 15, 15, 12, 10 on 3d6 then hells yes they deserved a powerful class like Bard! |
|
|
