Bard Idea?

[verhaden]

I'm not sure if this should go here for in the Workshop area, but since I'm not providing any hard mechanics, I think it fits better here.

I'm new to OD&D, having recently worked my way back from a very recent experience with B/X, and I've come to the decision that I don't want to incorporate Thieves into my game--the class doesn't jive with the kind of game I'd like to run. (For reasons already espoused in this forum. Problems with skill system implications, etc. Besides, I'm giving serious consideration to incorporating "aspects" from the modern FUDGE\Fate game called Spirit of the Century to give mechanical importance to character backgounds and traits, etc.)

Anyway, that leaves me with 3 classes. Your Fighting-Man is all about physical combat, the Magic-User is all about spells, and the Cleric is some creature in the middle.

I don't think classes necessarily represent a character 100%--a character who wants to be a swashbuckling thief might have to take the "Fighter" class now to fill his desired archetype, for instance. But the class "Cleric" has a connotation that I don't find very appealing.

But I want a middle class that combines the mechanical combat abilities of both the fighter and the magic-user. So why not turn the Cleric into a Bard? Depending on your views, the Cleric's kind of a "jack-of-all-trades" already--capable of both of the two main class defining attributes but master of neither.

All it would take to turn a Cleric into a Bard is some fudging here and there and changes in the fluff. Remove the non-edged weapon limitations? If we're going 3LBB, then all weapons deal 1d6 damage regardless, so that's no problem.

"Cure Light Wounds" can become a medical or lore skill picked up in his travels. Or maybe it could follow the more abstract views on HP (wherein they not only represent physical damage, but also luck, morale, etc.) to represent a song that "lifts ones spirits."

And so on.

Has anybody else around here contemplated such a shift? If so, or if not, any thoughts on the subject?

Edit: I'm also considering removing their "Turn Undead" ability. On one hand, it could easily be passed off as some application of information or lore learned from traveling Gypsies to ward off evil spirits. On the other, removing "Turn Undead" makes for very scary and risky undead counters.

[ffilz]

Note: there isn't "no problem" with removing edged weapon restriction in 3 LBB. Swords are the most common magic weapon, and the only magic weapons that are intelligent.

Frank

[trollman]

I tend to divide classes into 2 groups - either fighters or magic-users. I'm not a fan of either clerics or thieves.

I don't think a bard per se would be a good hybrid class, but a hybrid class could be workable I think. Rather than taking the AD&D approach, where you get both abilities, yet level slowly, I'd prefer a different approach.

You could take a level of fighter or m-u. Then, when you go up a level, you could choose that level to be as a fighter or m-u. So you can end up with a character that is 3/4 fighter & 1/4 m-u, 1/2 fighter & 1/2 m-u, etc.

For example, you start out as a fighter. When you reach 2nd level, you take a level of m-u. When you reach 3rd level, you take another level of fighter. At 4th, another level in fighter, and at 5th, another level in m-u.

So what you would have is a 5th level character that is a 3rd level fighter and a 2nd level m-u. You get variety in that you are able to fight and cast spells, but on the other hand, you are a bit weaker than a pure fighter or m-u.

You would have hit points equal to a 3rd level fighter, hit as a 3rd level fighter, and cast spells as a 2nd level m-u.

I like the idea of a bard, but I've never come across a bard class that worked for me. I think I would lean towards a bard that is basically a weak fighter, but has certain special abilities that become available or strengthen as he levels.

So for example, a bard starting out could tell 1 encouraging story (presumably after a battle) that would replenish a certain number of hit points. The danger would be, it would require theatrics and at times, loud speaking (potentially dangerous in a monster-infested area). This could only be done once per week at first, and later, could be done once per day, increase the amount healed, etc.

You could also have a lore ability, where the bard has a chance of knowing a special word or shout that could strike fear into the hearts of an intelligent enemy, causing them to run or attack with a penalty, etc.

[coffee]

I think that a big part of the problem with defining a playable Bard class is that, as a general rule, Bards are not that heroic.

I'm not saying that they can't be, mind you; also, I've played a lot of Bards in my day. I'm just saying that in the source literature for D&D, Bards don't show up near as often as Fighting- Men, Magic Users, or even Thieves. (By the same logic, I can see why people want to dump the Cleric, but that's another thread...)

I would go so far as to rate a Bard as strictly an NPC. (This is just my solution; I don't think anyone else should feel bound to it.) In short, he's someone you hire, not someone you play.

This, of course, could lead to a lot of NPC 'classes' as we've seen over the years in The Dragon, which invariably some player wanted to play, so they end up being PC classes -- and way too many of them.

Anyway, I just wanted to stick in my two coppers to this discussion.

[busman]

May 12, 2008 10:09:03 GMT -6 coffee said:

This, of course, could lead to a lot of NPC 'classes' as we've seen over the years in The Dragon, which invariably some player wanted to play, so they end up being PC classes -- and way too many of them.

Yeah, these always drove me nuts. Alchemist? Houri? Acrobat? these are really classes people are interested in playing? More power to someone who has a campaign that can keep someone interested in playing one of these NPC classes not just once or twice, but enough to level up in them many times over.

I played an Anti-Paladin once for about 3 levels, the shine wore off and I moved on, and I found that to be one of the more realistically developed classes.

I like the idea of a Bard class, but the way it was in AD&D was basically a super adventurer, someone who had been many other things in life already.

TBH, the best Bard class I ever saw was in EverQuest. It wasn't fully fleshed out into its own totally unique class, but it wasn't wholesale borrowing from a bunch of other classes.

I'd be interested in a Bard class that brought something unique to the game, but not some sort of bastardization of existing classes.

[verhaden]

Thanks for all the input. I'd like to have a Bard class, or at least incorporate a way to make it accessible from another class of sorts. I thought that I should start with what was given, and see if fluff changes would be enough to get what I was looking for. I'm just looking at options OD&D might have as a means to create an Ultima styled game for some friends of mine.

[trollman]

May 12, 2008 13:45:58 GMT -6 busman said:

[TBH, the best Bard class I ever saw was in EverQuest. It wasn't fully fleshed out into its own totally unique class, but it wasn't wholesale borrowing from a bunch of other classes.

I was thinking the same thing. The only thing that I wouldn't like is the idea of "twisting songs". That was carried over into the EQ RPG, but I don't think it really fits.

I suppose instead of researching magic spells, the bard would research/develop new songs & stories. The bard could have battle chants that give a small bonus to morale, or to hit rolls, or to saves, etc., just like the EQ bard. You could also have songs that give you extra attacks (say 3 attacks every 2 rounds), but it would also draw the attention of the monsters.

Speaking of EQ, I never really liked the idea of having monks in D&D until I played a monk in EQ.

[dwayanu]

If you wanted a "literal" bard (i.e., from the ancient Celtic tradition), then he'd be part of the druidic hierarchy -- and maybe not a likely player-character in the usual D&D scheme of freebooting adventurers.

I tend to think of bards in the broader minstrel/troubador/skald sense (along with thieves and assassins) as a matter for role-playing rather than a special class.

Just give a Fighter or Magic-User a harp, and play him in character. He might not have to be Irish to lampoon some miscreant, if he's got a rep that makes folks heed his song. A high Charisma score helps, natch! If he spends enough time trading songs, he's likely to pick up some "legend lore" useful on adventures.

As to weapon restrictions: If you really don't (at least routinely) make rules-mechanical distinctions among weapons, then there's no game-balance reason class should bar use of any ordinary hand-to-hand weapon. Just don't let characters get magical bonuses from prohibited arms.

Thus, a Cleric or MU with a magical sword (or axe, or whatever) may as well be armed with a mundane club for all the good it does him. Curses might still afflict him, though ...

[Bard]

I have thought about this class a lot, and I feel that there is really two good solutions. One is the fighter or a thief with a harp, who is a rockstar like character. And the other is the cleric or magic user like character, with a special music-magic, and special spell repertoire.

(And there is a third one, I played a second edition ad&d bard, with a twist, he couldn't sing, but he could turn humanoids with his music, like clerics turn undead. Yes the idea came from the Asterix comics...)