[this is the second time I'm sitting down to write a draft on this subject; let's see if it gets posted]
When I was a kid, the bard was my favorite character class.
As an adult, I really like fighters (of all stripes). But the bard might still be my favorite character class. Just for different reasons.
Having said that, when I say bard, I'm talking the Rules As Written, 1E (AD&D) bard. I accept no substitutes. In fact, in all other editions of the game, the bard is dead to me.
And I've tried...Lord knows I've tried...to like bards in the various editions. The OD&D version (first published in The Strategic Review). The 2nd edition version (play-tested that one, solo, when running Return to White Plume Mountain). The 3rd edition version (played one of those, too...a half-elf). I've included my own B/X versions of the bard in two of my own books (my B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer). I even wrote up a version of the bard for use with Holmes Basic that I thought was pretty good, and I've suggested re-skinning the cleric as a bard, for folks who don't dig a religious angle in their games.
None of these suffice to make the class palatable.
And, no, it may NOT be the "adjusted" versions of the bard that are floating around the tables playing 1E. I've tried Huso's curated, bard specific spell list. I've played the illusionist-style and song-variant versions found in Dragon #56. Heck, I've posted rules for a single-class version of the bard, myself...that I've since discarded.
All unsatisfying.
Gygax's version of the bard...the version found in Appendix II of the PHB...is the only version I use, the only version I'm interested, the only version I enjoy playing or running. I first discovered that bard circa Spring of 1985...nearly 40 years ago. I've played at least half a dozen bards since then, and run (as a DM) at least half a dozen more. Hm. More (now that I think about it)...at least 7 or 8 over the years, although several of these never made it out of the "wannabe" stage of their careers.
I like the bard as written. I run it exactly as given in the PHB. I supplement ONLY with the clarifications and Q&A info provided in the Sage Advice column of Dragon #56, all of which I have found to be sound and perfectly reasonable. Aside from the lack of alignment restriction and training costs (universal changes for my home campaign), I deviate not a whit from the class as written.
I find it perfect.
As a kid, I liked the class because it was different and it seemed to offer a lot of power: thief abilities, bard abilities, spells, good fighting. The bard characters of my youth, which I have described often enough in prior posts, were powerful, and wondrously adaptable (as all multi-class characters tend to be)...but certainly not ALL powerful. High level fighters were far better at fighting. High level clerics and magic-users were far more powerful and versatile spell-casters. High level thieves could sneak better and backstab for more damage.
My old bard...viewed with a bit of distance and maturity...was mainly "powerful" due to the possession of fairly good psionic abilities, something few bards (or few of ANY character!) can count on acquiring. Take away the psionics and you have a middling good character with a lot of abilities that requires good play to get the most out of it.
And that's what I like about the bard these days: the challenge of the character class. Leveling the character isn't difficult...well, no more difficult than leveling any fighter (fighters take a lot of x.p. to level compared to clerics, thieves, and...yes...magic-users). But once you've switched to the thief class, leveling goes fast (assuming the bard is traveling with a similarly experienced party): the character breezes through the thief levels AND the early levels of bard as well. For players who enjoy rapid advancement...and who are willing to be patient through the slog of the fighter class...the bard pays rich dividends down the road.
But the bard is no walk-in-the-park to play. As a fighter, you must think like a fighter. As a thief, you must think like a thief. And as a bard, you must be on your toes with regard to which class abilities you use when...it's not an easy task to juggle but for the experienced gamer, that challenge is one to be tackled with relish.
The bard's high number of hit points, excellent Charisma, and automatic language learning ability makes the character an ideal leader and negotiator/spokesman for the party. Half-elf bards (with their initial language selection) are even more so, and players should become used to this style of play (i.e. not slaying everything they encounter on first sight) as early as possible (i.e. even during the fighter portion of their career). Even when pursuing fighter or thief class, it behooves the 1E bard player to think of themselves as a "bard-in-training." The biggest mistake I made as a youth was leaning to hard into the fighter aspect of the class...and then forming habits of acting like a fighter even after I had leveled into bard (and after fighter PCs were outstripping my fighter ability). My characters died a lot, in part because of my violent approach to the game...fortunately, AD&D has a variety of magic to help recover the stupidly dead character.
Some may quibble with the bard's druidic magic and whether or not is thematically appropriate or effective. Personally, I don't care. It functions. It helps describe and define just what a bard IS in terms of an AD&D campaign (their druidic nature/training). And it doesn't allow the character's spell-casting to upstage any of the other party spell-users...druid spells are powerful in the outdoors, but in the dungeon environment, they are probably the least effective of the casters.
And, yet, a bard will never come close to the power level of a true druid with regard to spell-casting: a 10th level bard has a spell selection of 3/3/3/2 (not counting WIS bonuses), while a druid of the same x.p. total (some 250,000) has a selection of 5/5/3/3/2/1, exclusive of WIS...let's not sniff at the druid's ability to transmute rock to mud and conjure fire elementals!
Far from over-powered, the bard is a true jack-of-all trades: a little of this, a little of that. But with invaluable abilities to the adventuring party, not just with their communication forte, but with their legend lore ability: I find that to be the skill most often used by the bard. And, yet, because of their fighter training (and high hit points) they perform well in melee. And because of their thieving abilities and good saving throws they perform adequately in a "scout" capacity. For the player who likes to keep busy, the bard can always find something useful to do.
Without upstaging the PCs with dedicated classes.
Not that I worry all that much about "upstaging;" redundancy is a desirable aspect of party building in AD&D, so that when a PC is low on hit points or spells (or dead) another party member can step up to the plate. This is why multi-class demi-humans are so useful, even at higher levels of play (i.e. when they start topping out). The bard is effectively another multi-class character...albeit with a more circuitous route...that has several unique powers and abilities. In 1E, the bard class works well and supplements most parties quite admirably.
Yeah. I love the bard. No, it's not an easy class to play, but it is a useful class to have in a party. It's not the tricksy, obnoxious, humorous thing that it's morphed into over the last 35 years. It provides redundancy AND muscle, subtlety AND spell-craft. Consider how rangers and paladins both (eventually) gain spells; the former at 150,000 x.p., the latter at 350,000 (!!). Now consider the 1E bard is pretty much the same with its delayed spell acquisition, earning its first spell somewhere between 38,000 and 140,000 x.p. Not bad at all.
I understand the philosophical objections some have to the "meta" of the class: how can a character suddenly go from fighter to thief (let alone from thief to bard) without spending several years on training. After all, even a thief is presumed to have had a lengthy apprenticeship, learning their trade, before setting off as an adventurer. My attitude is that the bard is likewise FULLY TRAINED in all its skills: fighting, thieving, "barding." But because of their order (the bardic colleges), they are required to focus their career on certain paths to prove themselves...like requiring a person to spend time as a "resident" before awarding them the title of "doctor." In order to grow in their craft, they must exercise firm discipline and focus on each branch, growing in strength and proficiency as they hone each skill set. It's not that the character "suddenly learns thief abilities;" rather, the character has only reached a point of satisfaction with their fighter focus that they can (at last) turn their attention to the thief aspect of their class. And so on.
I dig it...I really do. But it's not just the flavor of the class that I like...it is the practical way it operates. It fulfills its own niche, a niche un-shared by any other character type. The bard is strong...and it plays well at the table. At least, that's been my experience.
And I've had a lot of experience with the bard.
; )
If there are folks out there maligning the bard, I don't want to know about it! I think it's a great class, and an awesome way to bring Celtic culture and druids into prominence in a campaign.
ReplyDeleteWhat did you think about the additions from Unearthed Arcana that would affect the bard (fighter weapon specialization, added weapons for the thief, etc...)?
ReplyDeleteWhen the UA came out, we quickly incorporated the entirety of its contents into our game. "Comeliness" was probably more game wrecking than anything: I rolled a natural "18" for my CHA 18 bard, and with his half-elf bonus ensured a score in the 20s, making him a 'fascination' (the UA spell) machine.
DeleteThe additional weapon proficiencies meant more options, certainly. My bard specialized in bow (duh, power gamer) as a 1st level fighter. All our thieves (including our bards) went the thief-acrobat route. Pretty sure my bard had "whip" proficiency. All the acrobats wanted telescoping magic quarterstaffs...my character was no different. The new grappling rules, magic items, spells, etc. all impacted the bard class, too.
UA made our game a bit more "wahoo"...but, FWIW, that *was* kind of the "charm" of the book. It was an injection of novelty into a game that had turned somewhat stale to our jaded eyes. Just like we'd incorporate the occasional Dragon mag hotness.
These days I'm a lot less worried about hot new stuff, and much more interested in ramping up intensity through solid world building (which leads to increased immersion/engagement), and hard (i.e. challenging) play.
Probably need to write a post or two on this, but the short of it is: it ain't necessary. With regard to the bard, for instance, we decided (as a group) that the bard's w.p. list was only the weapons they could learn once they were on their "bard career path;" however, weapons learned in other career paths were still retained. One bard, for instance (not mine) used a ranseur that she'd learned during her fighting career. Does the game need a polearm-wielding bard? Probably not.
Man, nostalgia is a powerful thing.
ReplyDelete1e Bards are HD machines. That's their main function.
The extra hit points give the bard a chance to play their music even when the arrows are flying. That's fun!
Delete; )
I've always wondered why no version of the bard (that I know of, anyway) has just done the obvious and given bards a defensive bonus when performing rather than fighting or casting spells. Seems like such a simple, no-fuss way to encourage the troubador/skald/herald style of play. Skin it however you like - a simple luck bonus, the hand of whatever muses or gods watch over bards, or practical experience at dodging attacks from unappreciative audiences - but give them a break when they're playing showman on the battlefield.
DeleteI actually have an almost finished blog draft ranting about the 1e bard. I might just wrap it up and post it this week. :-p
Delete@ Dick:
DeleteThat's (part of) what HPs in 1E represent: luck, divine intervention, etc. This is explicit in the DMG.
Individual "defensive bonuses" by class are not a thing in AD&D because AD&D was written before video games and the idea of 'balancing' character effectiveness. There is armor with universally applied bonuses. There is DEX with universally applied adjustment. There are magic effects that are universally applied to characters under those effects. And there are some game effects (like cover) that are...you guess it...universally applied.
OD&D and AD&D were born from wargaming roots that...while gamey and fun...are still concerned with SIMULATING something and completely UNconcerned with METAgame concerns ("Man, this bard sucks, if he sings he's going to get tooled up in combat!"). AD&D doesn't care: YEAH, wizard. You can't wear armor and you lose your DEX if you're casting spells...deal with it! YEAH, bard...you get a bunch of special abilities...figure out how to use them within the parameters of the combat (game) system. Or play some other character. No special favors!
(and, BTW, the thing D&D is simulating is not reality but heroic fiction. That's the justification for HPs and saving throws. But, no, the bard doesn't get any additional defense)
@ Anders:
DeletePost a link here when you're done.
: )
Here you go, JB
Deletehttp://mythlands-erce.blogspot.com/2024/10/appraising-advanced-d-part-4-classes.html
Here it is, JB.
Deletehttp://mythlands-erce.blogspot.com/2024/10/appraising-advanced-d-part-4-classes.html
While I dont think that bards should have spells, one of the fun things about the OD&D bard is that you get to play halfling and dwarf magic users, or use them as NPC against your players.
ReplyDeleteI like your Holmes bard the best.
I like that version of the bard a lot, too.
DeleteThe main problem with Holmes is that it doesn't provide enough long-term game play for my tastes. But I'd rather play Holmes (or BlueHolmes) than any of the current "micro-lites" on the market.
Never a Bard fan, but once we understood the benefits of the Dual Class rules we exploited the heck out of them. Especially post UA and in 2e with weapon specialization.
ReplyDeleteWe would start as fighters then move to thieves or wizards. We were power gamers and this was the move to make more powerful charachters.
I remember when I moved from Eastern Washington to Western Washington in high-school and found a new group. They were blown away.
You weren't part of the Wenatchee group, by any chance? I've known a lot of cross-mountain transplants who came out of that gaming culture.
Delete(a lot of Champions/HERO folks)
Not Wenatchee, Colfax, but I miss pre internet days when games and rules were regional. One good DM could build a fan base for a game, style of play, or houserule.
DeleteOff topic, but I got my email from the Seahawks to vote on the top 50 players in the last 50 years as they prep for the anniversary season.
One, good for them starting early and building hype. Better than WOTC who has done a lackluster job of recognition on its 50th.
Two, how the hell does Jamal Adam's even get his name on the ballott? I looked it up so I get he was a Walter Payton man of the year nominee, but come on..........
Oh, man...I hadn't seen that. I'd find it tough to believe he'll make the top 50. Take the Hall of Famers (not counting Rice or Harris), the Ring of Honor guys, the Super Bowl winners (like, the whole team) and a handful of 'other guys' from the Knox, Holmgren, and Carroll years...no, I don't think "the Prez" makes the cut, despite his sack record. He's not even in the Top 5 for Seahawks safeties. No. Just...no.
DeleteWhile I miss a lot of things about the past, it IS nice that kids in Colfax (or any other small town) have more access to D&D (and most other RPGs) thanks to the magic of the internet. That's a good thing, even if it also poses (different) challenges.
https://50.seahawks.com/
DeleteI think they missed a lot of folks on the ballott. Derrick Coleman for example off an inspirational player and maybe too many current players.
What's fu
Accidently hit publish. The fun part is at work comparing our picks and debating the merrits of each player.
DeleteReminds me that I want to try to revise the dual-class rules such that the Bard isn't a complete exception (other than allowing half-elves to dual-class). That could also potentially encourage more dual-class characters, which generally means more humans, which to me is a good thing. Probably toning down the characteristic requirements to 15s in all of the relevant ones rather than requiring 17s and 18s would be enough.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've never seen/had a true "dual class" character at my table. I think dual class characters are better as either A) NPCs, or B) pre-gens or advanced (i.e. higher than 1st level) characters. It is otherwise extremely hard to justify the change in career path...on a whim!...without the years of training.
DeleteAs with the bard; their younger years included both areas to one extent or another. They decide to concentrate on one, then after a while they resume the other. Why does it work that way? Reasons. It's a game.
Delete@JB: I've seen very few dual-class characters, too, but I think it's because of the impossibly difficult characteristic requirements. As an aside, I think that has a lot to do with the reason that we see so few Illusionists too, but that's another gripe (why should a specialist magician need so much higher of an Intelligence and Dexterity that nearly any other class, much less a regular Magic-User? 12 in Intelligence and 12 or 13 in Dexterity should be more than enough to justify a sub-class; see the Assassin* for a comparable case).
Delete@Baron Greystone: Exactly so. It helps justify the PH Bard class, too, without requiring it to be such an exception to the normal rules.
*And on the Assassin, I think they should be any non-Good alignment, as the class, to me, also includes Spies.
@ JB
DeleteWhen we ran a dual class it was always roleplayed. The thief is going to start as fighter but eventually be a thief, so we would typically role play him practicing picking locks at camp or trying to sneak up on people. Maybe he was already part of the guild. MU read books and practiced spells. It's not like starting thief's have great success rates or MU start with a ton of spells.
I ran a 1e game a few years ago and one of the clerics dual classed into a MU. The hard part were the levels he couldn't use cleric spells.