| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
 Posted - 16 Mar 2014 : 19:58:13
|
|
It was announced that bards in 5th edition will be full spellcasters instead of the bards of all previous editions. How will you handle this in your games? I never imagined Volo or Danilo Thann as being a full spellcaster.
|
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2014 : 21:00:28
|
Volo was never a bard as I recall, he was a Wizard, neer to do type one, but a wizard.
As to full spell caster, it depends much on what that means. Bards used to be able to cast Divine and Arcane spells as a "full spell caster" Just they could not cast as many. Less sorcerer and more Cleric I would embrace gladly. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
 |
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2014 : 21:00:35
|
| Bards in AD&D were full spellcasters. In fact, they had all the powers of a Druid too (shapeshifting and etc). |
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
Shadowsoul
Senior Scribe
Ireland
705 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2014 : 22:17:36
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Bards in AD&D were full spellcasters. In fact, they had all the powers of a Druid too (shapeshifting and etc).
2nd edition Bard: Since bards are dabblers rather
than full time wizards, their spells tend to be gained
by serendipity and happenstance. In no case
can a bard choose to specialize in a school of
magic. Their spells went to 6th level and that first 6th level spell wasn't gained until 17th level.
Just looked at the 1st edition Bard and no where does it state shapechanging. Also, a Bard casts spells as a 13 the level Druid at "23rd" level. Their max spell level was 5th level spells.
Not sure which Bard you were remembering. |
“Fantasy is escapist, and that is its glory. If a soldier is imprisioned by the enemy, don't we consider it his duty to escape?. . .If we value the freedom of mind and soul, if we're partisans of liberty, then it's our plain duty to escape, and to take as many people with us as we can!”
#8213; J.R.R. Tolkien
*I endorse everything Dark Wizard says*. |
|
|
|
The Arcanamach
Master of Realmslore
1842 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 00:09:25
|
| I'll almost certainly handle it by sticking to my homebrew system. |
I have a dream that one day, all game worlds will exist as one. |
Edited by - The Arcanamach on 17 Mar 2014 00:09:55 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 00:37:17
|
So I guess WotC assumes Shakespeare cast spells, eh?
I don't mind a few spells (like in older editions), but its getting a bit ridiculous - if every class doesn't have enough firepower, they assume no-one will play them... but then whats even the point of having different classes?
In OD&D every class was very different, and played different. You didn't worry about how much DPS you were doing, you played a certain class for the Roleplaying opportunities it presented.
But whatever... I promised to give it a chance and I will.
|
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 17 Mar 2014 00:38:13 |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 00:48:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowsoul
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
Bards in AD&D were full spellcasters. In fact, they had all the powers of a Druid too (shapeshifting and etc).
2nd edition Bard: Since bards are dabblers rather
than full time wizards, their spells tend to be gained
by serendipity and happenstance. In no case
can a bard choose to specialize in a school of
magic. Their spells went to 6th level and that first 6th level spell wasn't gained until 17th level.
Just looked at the 1st edition Bard and no where does it state shapechanging. Also, a Bard casts spells as a 13 the level Druid at "23rd" level. Their max spell level was 5th level spells.
Not sure which Bard you were remembering.
Well first Edition, my copy, states: "Experience Level is likewise that of the bard class only. There is no level beyond 23rd. The bard gains druidic powers as a druid of the same level, with the exception of druidic spells as explained below." page 118 PHB
I will add this "At level 7 (Initiate of the 5th circle), the following additional powers are gained:...2. Ability to change form up to three times per day," page 21 PHB
Page 21 is Druid class, page 118 says a bard gets all druid ability, except spell same access which clearly would indicate that a 7th level bard can shapeshift.
I also should correct my own reply, while Bards had a chance to identify magic user items, their granted spells were only divine.
Edited a typo in quoted item. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
Edited by - Kentinal on 17 Mar 2014 00:50:21 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4685 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 01:09:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
So I guess WotC assumes Shakespeare cast spells, eh?
I don't mind a few spells (like in older editions), but its getting a bit ridiculous - if every class doesn't have enough firepower, they assume no-one will play them... but then whats even the point of having different classes?
In OD&D every class was very different, and played different. You didn't worry about how much DPS you were doing, you played a certain class for the Roleplaying opportunities it presented.
But whatever... I promised to give it a chance and I will.
Fron 2nd Edition quote:
The bard is an optional character class that can be used if your DM allows. He makes his way in life by his charm, talent, and wit. A good bard should be glib of tongue, light of heart, and fleet of foot (when all else fails).
In precise historical terms, the title "bard" applies only to certain groups of Celtic poets who sang the history of their tribes in long, recitative poems. These bards, found mainly in Ireland, Wales, and Scotland, filled many important roles in their society. They were storehouses of tribal history, reporters of news, messengers, and even ambassadors to other tribes. However, in the AD&D game, the bard is a more generalized character. Historical and legendary examples of the type include Alan-a-Dale, Will Scarlet, Amergin, and even Homer. Indeed, every culture has its storyteller or poet, whether he is called bard, skald, fili, jongleur, or something else.
I have always leaned toward the historical Celtic bard then the vagabond of the ilks of Shakespeare, that did not recount history or law choosing instead to invent a new history. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Dalor Darden
Great Reader
USA
4211 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 04:11:33
|
I think it was put pretty much into scale what Bards get:
All Druid Abilities...which means:
Shapeshifting
Druidic Language and bonus languages
Pass Without a Trace
Bonus to Fire and Lightning Saves
Identify Plants and Animals
Immunity to Charms
Starting at 16th Level...
Immunity to Natural Poisons
Extra Longevity
Vigorous Health
Alter Appearance
17th...
Hibernation
Enter Elemental Earth
Conjure Water Elemental
18th...
Enter Elemental Fire
Conjure Air Elemental
19th...
Enter Elemental Water
Conjure Magma/Smoke Paraelemental
20th...
Enter Elemental Air
Conjure Ice/Ooze Paraelemental
21st...
Enter the Paraelemental Planes
22nd...
Enter the Plane of Shadow
23rd...
Enter any Inner Plane
roam Inner Plane Probability Lines (the 7th Dimension)
Dwell on the Plane of Concordant Opposition
So yeah, they may not have 6th or 7th level spells...but they are a pure caster in my book.
|
The Old Grey Box and AD&D for me! |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 10:33:27
|
| 3e way to handle classic secondary casters is pointless redux inconsistent with the new toolkit. Given 3e way to handle multiclassing, they could be better implemented as Rogue (performer) / Song Mage, Warrior (hunter) / Druid Auxiliary, Warrior (Knight Errant) / Priest (militant priest). |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 11:46:21
|
Homebrew all the way. No new rules edition will tempt me away now. d20 gave me a modular system that put the players and the DM on equal footing and allowed me to achieve anything i want without breaking any rules.
I changed bards so they had aura's (like the dragon shaman) instead of the singing which were horrible rules to play with and DM. They kept their spellcasting as normal, and i already scrapped BAB and save progressions so every class is only as good as his ability scores (and every monster). Multiclassing no longer weakens any class it only adds new abilities.
Sourcebooks with lore in are all that interest me now for FR. My rules are perfect for me and i will never ever change them, not even if i were paid money to change editions by WoTC themselves.
I want books with history and lore detailing people and places that i can use for my world. Everything else (feats, skills, monsters, npc's) i can make up without help, but the lore i need a bit of groundwork first from the good old designers of 2nd and 3rd edition FR days.
Bards are meant to be a bit of everything so i intend to keep their partial spellcasting, partial rogue skill choices, partial fighting prowess and weapon choices. Can't say i would ever give them druid abilities but i have feats that allow characters to take the wild shape ability anyway so if a bard really wanted it he could have it.
If you give them full casting ability why would you ever be a wizard or a cleric, since bards get (or got) healing spells. In fact if bards get full casting ability why would you ever play any class other than a bard.
Every party member should be a bard. You keep two bards up front buffed with armour and stat boosting spells. Then two bards at the back using ranged weapons and damage spells. Then two bards in the middle doing heals and keeping the buffs going.
5e, otherwise known as "bard rules"
|
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions Candlekeep Archive
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 1
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 2
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 3
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 4
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 5
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 6
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 7
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 8
Forgotten Realms Alternate Dimensions: Issue 9
Alternate Realms Site |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 11:58:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Homebrew all the way. No new rules edition will tempt me away now. d20 gave me a modular system that put the players and the DM on equal footing and allowed me to achieve anything i want without breaking any rules.
d20 is modular, but the modules are ugly - it got adjustments centered on 10.5, offset monster HD, skill rank inflation and feats.
PO:S&P CP constructor is better than this even in the "official" version not patched with common sense all over.
quote:
I changed bards so they had aura's (like the dragon shaman) instead of the singing which were horrible rules to play with and DM.
...but the modules are ugly even for MUD game.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 12:12:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I think it was put pretty much into scale what Bards get:
All Druid Abilities...which means:
<snip>
So yeah, they may not have 6th or 7th level spells...but they are a pure caster in my book.
But there still is a major difference - spells lists were highly class-specific back in the day, and the choices were much more limited.
If the 'Full Spellcaster' of 5e means they have the same range of magical capabilities as a Wizard - even if limited in other ways - it detracts from their flavor. Both the old-school Druid and Bard had spells that felt 'Celtic'; they weren't tossing fireballs around. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6351 Posts |
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
|
|
hashimashadoo
Master of Realmslore
United Kingdom
1150 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 15:47:45
|
I've always seen bards as being the jack of all trades, master of none.
I don't mind them casting spells, as long as that doesn't overshadow their thieving and fighting abilities. Making them full spellcasters sounds like that's precisely what'll happen.
Incidentally, Inspirations are the only reason anyone in the groups I play with put up with Bards. Only one girl ever plays them anymore and she usually tries to find the best place to Inspire Courage while staying out of the actual fighting. |
When life turns it's back on you...sneak attack for extra damage.
Head admin of the FR wiki:
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/ |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3240 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 20:01:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I've always seen bards as being the jack of all trades, master of none.
I don't mind them casting spells, as long as that doesn't overshadow their thieving and fighting abilities. Making them full spellcasters sounds like that's precisely what'll happen.
Incidentally, Inspirations are the only reason anyone in the groups I play with put up with Bards. Only one girl ever plays them anymore and she usually tries to find the best place to Inspire Courage while staying out of the actual fighting.
I had a great experience with my gaming group a few weeks back where the party was deep in underwater caverns and wanted to rest. At times like that, to keep things moving story-wise, I cut back to their ship, where their sub-ordinates have to repel a sahaugin attack. The ninja's subordinate is a bard, and I'd been upping their levels so they were only a level behind the main group, and I was able to give him some spells like Sound Burst that dealt damage. Because the sahaugin were climbing the side of the ship, and a secondary effect of the spell is stunning them, she actually contributed to combat in a way she never considered before and suddenly had all kinds of ideas for her other bard character.
My job is done. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2014 : 22:19:35
|
One thing to remember about AD&D1E bards: they were not starting characters, they were already seasoned adventurers. They needed to dual-class through a fair number of Fighter and Thief levels first, had to have incredible ability scores, obey certain alignments, be accepted within a Bardic college, actually want to be singsongy entertainer sorts, etc etc. Hardly a basic beginner class, so not unreasonable to dabble in so many other class abilities.
2E bards were substantially nerfed into a hybrid thiefy-wizardy sort, and bards of each subsequent D&D edition evolved onwards.
Quite strange, to my mind, since bards in modern fantasy all loosely conform to this bit-of-everything magic-using archetype. By and large, bards and entertainers (and troubadours, jongleurs, hip-hop artists, whatever) throughout history have been more like (itenerant, opportunistic, charismatic, immoral) circus folk than like powerful enchanters. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Delwa
Master of Realmslore
USA
1268 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2014 : 00:39:30
|
I like the bard's new twist. My first introduction to fantasy bards wasn't D&D, it was Stephen R. Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle. The image of bards I got from that was more of a extremely powerful mage, but one who didn't use his spells unless absolutely necessary. Instead, he relied on his wits and vast knowledge to gain the upper hand.
When I read Danilo Thann's story, I got a similar impression. Magic was something he had access to, but he relied equally on his charisma and wits, he wasn't just a bookish mage. |
- Delwa Aunglor
I am off to slay yon refrigerator and spoil it's horde. Go for the cheese, Boo!
"The Realms change; seldom at the speed desired of those who strive, but far too quickly for those who resist." - The Simbul, taken from the Forgotten Realms Campaign Conspectus |
|
|
|
Gyor
Master of Realmslore
1621 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2014 : 10:31:26
|
I'll point out that the 4e Bard was in fact a full caster, all powers with the Arcane keyword were concidered spells.
I did like that 5e Bards aren't strictly arcane spell casters, the fluff supports any and all power sources, basically aknowledging that the Bard has used different power sources in different editions. |
|
|
|
Plaguescarred
Learned Scribe
Canada
190 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2014 : 13:19:53
|
| I will handle Bard as full caster just like i handle them in my AD&D 2nd edition campaign. Its not so much their # of spell slots that will differentiate them from wizard, but their spell list choice. |
Yan
Playtester |
|
|
|
TBeholder
Great Reader
2382 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2014 : 21:13:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
Well all the ugliness is gone for me, no skill ranks or inflation of any kind, i stripped out the crap that doesnt work and replaced it.
How? Less skill ranks per level? Clamped maximum ranks?
quote:
And best of all i dont need any epic rules because once you remove level progression of BAB and saves and the ad hoc AC numbers, everything balances out and a lowly peasant with a magic bow can shoot and hit a dragon 3 times out of twenty (although killing it isnt likely unless the entire town has magic bows).
You mean, using explicit combat skills system much like in Wizardry games where hit probability and to lesser degree damage are adjusted not directly by level in any class, but ranks in uniform skills like "Mace & Flail" or "Bows" or "Thaumaturgy"?
In that case, yes, for complex game models stripping down to the basic skeleton components seems to be the best approach. Of course, the result of applying it consistently are not classes in xD&D sense. Only lists for development points per level distribution for categories of skills and traits - e.g. automatic, easy, allowed, unavailable. xD&D classes would be semi-customized premade packages - which also have their place, they just could use deeper profiling. In that 1-lvl warrior can be in town militia, steppe herders or jungle hunter/gatherer tribe, and those are 3 very different critters, whose access lists should intersect very little - "Wrestling", maybe "Short Spear", "War Cry" and "Intimidation" and... what else?
The character points based class constructor of PO:S&P is about a quarter or third of the way toward this.
quote:
They should have hired a mathematician to devise the d20 system from the start and tried to make everything fit together properly.
I doubt this would help. "If you can't spell out what do you want on your native language, you probably can't write a program to do it". Usually no one can't find the holy grail of "game balance" simply because it does not exist, or even have a defined meaning: the goalposts are a mirage that always shifts away.
Of course, allowing the obvious innumerates (e.g. the geniuses who developed MAC psionic system of DS v.2 and PO:S&P) to approach within potato cannon range of the crunch was a bad idea, but that's about it.  |
People never wonder How the world goes round -Helloween
And even I make no pretense Of having more than common sense -R.W.Wood
It's not good, Eric. It's a gazebo. -Ed Whitchurch |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7968 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2014 : 21:59:14
|
Late-2E psionics were indeed utterly awful. But, in fairness:
1) they were meant to be compatible with early-2E psionics, themselves an awful hodge-podge of shoehorned imbalances, and
2) they were meant to be compatible with the 2E rules system (itself essentially just a cleanup of the 1E rules system), which didn‘t accomodate them very well.
PHBR5 Complete Psionics had some pretty pictures but was an otherwise incompetent and damaging addition to the game. Especially since 2E initially rejected psionics and streamlined/simplified mental powers in terms of magical abilities ... but after PHBR5 things got confusing: Mind Flayers now had overlapping magical and psionic powers, enough to fry your brain two different ways? Woe to adventurers who encounter a mixed pack of these, or even a uniform pack with a multiple-attack-front strategy. This wishy-washy wavering didn‘t help things at all; shoulda either kept the PSPs from the outset or never have reintroduced them. The PHBR5 splatbook didn‘t improve the game, the DarkSun setting inherited all its flaws.
The PO and revised DarkSun approach was more refined, and even hinted towards what evolved into d20 rules ... in an era when being “incompatible“ with traditional Gygaxian AD&D was still unthinkable ... I think they didn‘t do too badly overall, considering the horrible implementation of psionics they had to work with. But yeah, it‘s pretty bad when you need no fewer than three major sourcebooks on Psionics just to get a *list* of the powers a psionicist (or a psionic wild talent) might happen to choose/roll. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 20 Mar 2014 22:09:18 |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11690 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2014 : 00:14:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
quote:
Originally posted by Dalor Darden
I think it was put pretty much into scale what Bards get:
All Druid Abilities...which means:
<snip>
So yeah, they may not have 6th or 7th level spells...but they are a pure caster in my book.
But there still is a major difference - spells lists were highly class-specific back in the day, and the choices were much more limited.
If the 'Full Spellcaster' of 5e means they have the same range of magical capabilities as a Wizard - even if limited in other ways - it detracts from their flavor. Both the old-school Druid and Bard had spells that felt 'Celtic'; they weren't tossing fireballs around.
2nd edition bards were... well those that learned fireball anyway. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
How will you handle the full "spellcasting" bards?
