Bards -- some thieves of a less larcenous bent have found the life of a traveling minstrel more to their taste; the coin still spends (and is less dangerous to come by), and the open road satisfies their wanderlust. A thief must have a score of 9 or better in both charisma and intelligence to become a bard.
Bards can wear chain in addition to leather armor and unlike other thieves they roll 6-sided dice for hit points. Bards do not have the same skills as a normal thief, and gain no advantage for attacking from behind; however, they do have the same ability to read languages and magic scrolls as a thief (upon reaching 4th level). Their main talent is their music, and any creature that hears a bard's music has a chance of being mesmerized as indicated by the
charm percentage on the table below. A successful roll indicates creatures must stand rapt, doing nothing but listen until the bard finishes playing or the creature is attacked. Members of the bard's party need not be affected, and individuals with hit dice or levels in excess of the bard receive a saving throw to resist. A bard may attempt to plant a
suggestion in the minds of mesmerized creatures ("go to sleep," "follow me," "show us your treasure," etc.), but the target automatically receives a save to resist. A bard may attempt to use her charm a number of times per day equal to her level of experience.
|
Trippin' tunes. |
The range of the bard's music is 60 feet, and it will automatically counteract the song effects of harpies and similar "sound attacks;" likewise, it will still the noise of shriekers. In most towns, a bard can earn D6 gold per day by busking in the street. In their travels, bards pick up all sorts of rumors, legends, and stories, and has a chance indicated by their
lore percentage of knowing useful information about any locale, person, or object (like magic items) encountered. Bards also learn extra languages in addition to those known due to the character's intelligence. A bard may use any magic item available to thieves.
Level
|
Charm
|
Lore
|
Languages
|
Busker
|
15
|
5
|
-
|
Rhymer
|
20
|
10
|
+1
|
Lyrist
|
25
|
15
|
-
|
Sonateer
|
30
|
20
|
+1
|
Minstrel
|
35
|
25
|
-
|
Jongleur
|
40
|
30
|
+1
|
Skald
|
45
|
40
|
-
|
Troubador
|
55
|
50
|
+1
|
Muse
|
65
|
60
|
-
|
Lore Master
|
75
|
70
|
+1
|
Bard
|
85
|
80
|
-
|
Master Bard
|
95
|
90
|
+1
|
[
EDIT: I have to say I am (again) very pleased with how this one turned out, especially with regard the class abilities. I don't think bards really need spells (aside from the magic of their music), though that might come as a disappointment to folks who've been playing bards since their 2nd and 3rd edition incarnations. I know that when I played my AD&D bard (waaaaaay back in the day), I almost never resorted to using its druid spells. One thing about going through the weird "fighter-thief" progression first: you learned how to adventure withOUT magic. By the time my character became a bard, I continued to use my fighting and thief skills (supplemented by my musical ability), and the druid-shtick was a serious afterthought. With this simplification (Doug Schwegman's original write-up in SR also had spells), I think it focuses the character, making it more in line with its "parent class," the thief. I even like the 12 level limit...but I'm finding it really difficult to make that work with my 1,000,000xp limit. I might need to expand it to thirteen]
I really dig this version of the bard. In your opinion, how would he roll with the B/X crew as opposed to the Holmes crew?
ReplyDelete@ DMW:
ReplyDeleteTough to say. It would probably be fine, but for my money, it's not really written consistently with the B/X "style."
The version I have in The Complete B/X Adventurer is pretty similar, but more magical and thiefy...it would be a good substitute for a B/X game where a player wanted to play "a different type of thief."
This version, on the other hand, does NOT overlap with the thief, instead providing a different way to approach and overcome challenges. It could work in a party with or without a thief, but might be (in my opinion) TOO simple for the B/X game. A B/X fighter gets away with being simple (having less options of "what they do") because combat is such a large part of D&D. I consider Holmes to be a little less structured than B/X and simple classes have "wiggle-room." A B/X player might want more "oomph" than this subclass provides.
But that's just my perception...I might be completely off my rocker. I'll say this: in practice, I haven't enjoyed fully enjoyed the Advanced Edition Companion with B/X-LL the same way I enjoyed them with AD&D. Strange as it seems (since they're all so similar), I've found B/X to work best with B/X.
If that makes any sense.