Bard. Jack of all trades, or inspiring leader?

I'm not a big bard fan myself, but it seemed to me that the point of the bard was to be a jack of all trades.  He had skills, spells, martial ability  and some leader ability.  Effectively a rogue/wizard(druid)/fighter/warlord/artificer(?) multiclass.

But in the recent podcast, Merls seemed to think the warlord would be stepping on his toes.  Implying that it core funtion was to be an inspiring leader, and not a jack of all trades.



So bard, fans, which is it?
1) Jack of all, (including a bit of leading).
2) Primaraly a leader, with lockpicking.

Or to put it another way..

Would bard fans be upset if spell casting and rogue skills where not a core bard thing?

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I am die-hard-bard. I cannot resist the character who brings a lute to a sword fight. I even still own my copy of Bard's Tale on my Commodore 64.  Just sayin' I love bards. They're the class I play. Period.

But I came into the game during second edition, so I'm super in the Jack-of-all-trades camp. I honestly just can't see Alan-a-dale leading the Merry Men into battle. Bards are poets, musicains, and scribes. I mean sure they're inspiring, but mostly they're using magical music and song to mess with you.

They are definetly not to be mistaken for warlords. Just because both of them are charismatic doesn't mean they're both leaders.
Why not both things? Or one or the other, depending on the build option? If they're a jack of all trades then they're able to put their fingers in every pie, inspiring leadership certainly shouldn't be left out.
I think bards lean towards a personal perfection in their ability to get others to do things.  They strive for the one 'great show'.  They do what they do because they want their art to get certain reactions.  They are hams and glory seekers. 

I would say, Jack of all trades, but only as a means to further their personal agenda.  Ultimately, they are artists.  And some artists try to get a following.  So they lead about as well as a celebrity can.

The fluff of the warlord class has a very different angle but the mechanics may cross the streams.

"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

I imagine the bard, druid, warlock or barbarian are pre-cursors to organized society, i.e. rogue, cleric, wizard or fighter. In that sense the bard tries to be everything to keep traditions in place (lore), bridge communitties (diplomatic) and help those causes with magic (ritual, arcane, divine). While the warlord strives for perfection in individuals and results trumps personal ideals when winning a conflict. So where a bard through music finds a common unifier, the warlord through martial practices and self sacrifice ensures the battle is won.
I think bards lean towards a personal perfection in their ability to get others to do things.  They strive for the one 'great show'.  They do what they do because they want their art to get certain reactions.  They are hams and glory seekers. 

I would say, Jack of all trades, but only as a means to further their personal agenda.  Ultimately, they are artists.  And some artists try to get a following.  So they lead about as well as a celebrity can.

The fluff of the warlord class has a very different angle but the mechanics may cross the streams.

Jack-of-all trades means it crosses streams with everything.

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

There's lots of fantasy archetypes. Some are clearly adventurers, or people who have the potential to be - the thief, the knight, the wizard. Some are generally not - the king, the beggar, the evil chancellor. The minstral is sort of on the border. If you want him to go on an adventure, you kind of have to give him other stuff to do besides just play music. D&D has kind of moved towards "guy who does a bit of everything", in addition to being a guy who inspires greatness in his friends, which has (largely because of D&D's own influence) sort of become the standard mechanistic representation of what bards do in a lot of fantasy games.

I guess I see the bard as the inspiring guy because in 3e (the edition that formed my views about how things are), the bard has a totally unique mechanic that's primarily about improving other people's performance. The jack-of-all-trades bit felt like it was mostly just rounding out the class to me. They just kind of made him medium at fighting, medium at casting (at the time my impressions were being formed, I lacked the system mastery to realize that "six-level spellcaster with a fairly impressive spell list" is a bit higher-impact than "3/4 BAB" is; at the time, they seemed parallel), and armed with above-average skill capabilities. While the bard has a handful of abilities to himself, I think that bardic music is the loudest. (No pun intended.) Much like the barbarian's rage, the loud, sexy, unique mechanic did the most to establish the shape of the class in my mind. While there are plenty of spells that make people fight better, the bard is the only class that has a dedicated ability for it. Many spellcasters can't or don't often cast spells that give allies bonuses. Every bard has a dedicated ability for it.

I don't really have a problem with something being more than one class's "thing". However, 3.5's further attempts at dedicated friend-helping mechanics were mostly unremarkable; they fairly muted Marshal, the aimless Dragon Shaman and the baffling Divine Mind are possibly three of the most forgettable classes in the entire edition. Spellcasters of all stripes (as well as the crusader and the warblade) got explicit ally-helping options, but always buried in a sea of other choices. In short, 3.5 never really put forth a strong co-contender for "inspiring guy" OR its most obvious mechanical reflection, "buffing guy".

Another reason that I think of the bard as the "inspiring guy" is that (sample size small), it feels to me that most people who I've played with who have chosen the 3.5 bard class (outside of Pathfinder, which deemphasizes the  performance element a little) have chosen it because they wanted to play up the performance aspect - generally as music, but sometimes as dance or oratory. While the class functions as a Jack of All Trades in some regards, that doesn't seem to be the strongest pull towards the class. That doesn't mean that it's not an important part of it, but it affects what people tend to play up. Pretty much every 3.5 Bard I've seen played was a performer who was incidentally a JoaT, not a Joat who was incidentally a performer. No idea if that's representative.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
There's lots of fantasy archetypes. Some are clearly adventurers, or people who have the potential to be - the thief, the knight, the wizard. Some are generally not - the king, the beggar, the evil chancellor. The minstral is sort of on the border. If you want him to go on an adventure, you kind of have to give him other stuff to do besides just play music. D&D has kind of moved towards "guy who does a bit of everything", in addition to being a guy who inspires greatness in his friends, which has (largely because of D&D's own influence) sort of become the standard mechanistic representation of what bards do in a lot of fantasy games.

I guess I see the bard as the inspiring guy because in 3e (the edition that formed my views about how things are), the bard has a totally unique mechanic that's primarily about improving other people's performance. The jack-of-all-trades bit felt like it was mostly just rounding out the class to me. They just kind of made him medium at fighting, medium at casting (at the time my impressions were being formed, I lacked the system mastery to realize that "six-level spellcaster with a fairly impressive spell list" is a bit higher-impact than "3/4 BAB" is; at the time, they seemed parallel), and armed with above-average skill capabilities. While the bard has a handful of abilities to himself, I think that bardic music is the loudest. (No pun intended.) Much like the barbarian's rage, the loud, sexy, unique mechanic did the most to establish the shape of the class in my mind. While there are plenty of spells that make people fight better, the bard is the only class that has a dedicated ability for it. Many spellcasters can't or don't often cast spells that give allies bonuses. Every bard has a dedicated ability for it.

I don't really have a problem with something being more than one class's "thing". However, 3.5's further attempts at dedicated friend-helping mechanics were mostly unremarkable; they fairly muted Marshal, the aimless Dragon Shaman and the baffling Divine Mind are possibly three of the most forgettable classes in the entire edition. Spellcasters of all stripes (as well as the crusader and the warblade) got explicit ally-helping options, but always buried in a sea of other choices. In short, 3.5 never really put forth a strong co-contender for "inspiring guy" OR its most obvious mechanical reflection, "buffing guy".

Another reason that I think of the bard as the "inspiring guy" is that (sample size small), it feels to me that most people who I've played with who have chosen the 3.5 bard class (outside of Pathfinder, which deemphasizes the  performance element a little) have chosen it because they wanted to play up the performance aspect - generally as music, but sometimes as dance or oratory. While the class functions as a Jack of All Trades in some regards, that doesn't seem to be the strongest pull towards the class. That doesn't mean that it's not an important part of it, but it affects what people tend to play up. Pretty much every 3.5 Bard I've seen played was a performer who was incidentally a JoaT, not a Joat who was incidentally a performer. No idea if that's representative.



While I appreciate and respect your opinion, I humbly disagree.

The bard archetype goes back to celtic myth. He's more than just a minstrel. He's a trickster who casts enchantments and illusions, and soothes wounds.

He's just became entwined with the minstrel, probably due to D&D's influence, that he's gained the foppish support role (not that I mind it personally, I love playing bards exactly this way, quick to gab, and drink, and sing, but slow to pick up a sword).

I think there's room in the game for both archetypes. And even a third that Mearls probably thinks is in warlord territory: the skald!

I can't see William Wallace as a bard, but... if you call him a skald. I can almost swallow it.
So bard, fans, which is it?
1) Jack of all, (including a bit of leading).
2) Primaraly a leader, with lockpicking.

If I had to be objective, I would say that bards make more sense as an inspiring "leader"; not that they tell anyone what to do, of course, but in the 4E sense of the term. Which is unfortunate, because I really enjoy Jack-type characters.

The metagame is not the game.

I don't think this is an either/or situation.  I think maybe the real question here is, what are the iconic features of the bard?

Personally, I would say:
- Inspiring allies, generally through performance-based or -flavored mechanics
- Bardic knowledge

The jack-of-all trades thing, for me, fits in with bardic knowledge.  A bard has has traveled around and picked up a lot of random bits of skill and knowledge.  The same goes for spells.  I'd really like it if I had the option to play a bard without spells (same goes for ranger and paladin), but I get the sense that that might be a vain hope, and there will probably be no spell-less option.

Obviously the bard does not need to be the "leader" in an RP sense.  Any class can take on the RP-leader role.

Because of its history as a dabbler in many fields and a jack-of-all-trades, I think the bard needs to be a very flexible class.  I should be able to create a charismatic frontline leader-type bard, or a more hang-back cunning trickster.  In 4e parlance, I think the bard should be able to fulfill any role, if not by default then at least with the aid of a specialty.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

To all the bard fans out there, I ask this simple question:

Do you understand how and why the following picture came to be representative of some people's attitude toward bards, and what would you do to make sure it never happens in Next?




Solve this problem, and I can get on board with bards taking up page space.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So bard, fans, which is it?
1) Jack of all, (including a bit of leading).
2) Primaraly a leader, with lockpicking.

This struck me as being the same question as

So, fighter fans, which is it?
1) sword and shield (including a bit of archery)
2) primarily an archer with a sword

Why does it have to be one or the other?

I vastly prefer very flexible class design so each player can play his own bard (or fighter) as he sees it. No need to narrow down the classes. Rogues include 2nd-story guys, military scouts, pickpockets, and con men. Fighters can be heavy infantry, cavalry with a lance, archers, and duellists. Bards can be "Brave Sir Robin" followers, scholarly Eisteddfod bards, and tricksters. The class should be built to allow all these options and more.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Not to pull the edition card, but 3rd edition did that to the bard.

The bard from 1st, 2nd, 4th, and PF are all great versions. 
The bard is one of the classes that is hard to design because it is hard to pin down exactly what the class does. There are a lot of possible concepts to build on and lots of characters from film and fantasy that could be pinned as bards (though few are called bards). There is the jack of all trades, inspiring leader, spell singer, battle historian and charming rogue, plus various sub-types for each of those. That is really too many concepts to pack in one class, particularly with Next's smaller more focused class designs.

Personally, my first choice would be to pull the inspiring leader and battle historian stuff from bard and stick them in warlord. The bard then becomes not so much a musical character as a charming one, essentially the dashing rogue and variants, while the rogue class keeps the thief/assassin stuff. However, there are a lot of ways of doing this.
Well one of the design goals was that each class should play difrently and have it's own thing.
In older editions the bard often cast wizard spells and as casting wizard spells already is the wizards thing they might have removed this from the bard.

and replaced it with more leading.

 
While I appreciate and respect your opinion, I humbly disagree.

The bard archetype goes back to celtic myth. He's more than just a minstrel. He's a trickster who casts enchantments and illusions, and soothes wounds.

He's just became entwined with the minstrel, probably due to D&D's influence, that he's gained the foppish support role (not that I mind it personally, I love playing bards exactly this way, quick to gab, and drink, and sing, but slow to pick up a sword).

I think there's room in the game for both archetypes. And even a third that Mearls probably thinks is in warlord territory: the skald!

I can't see William Wallace as a bard, but... if you call him a skald. I can almost swallow it.

Oh, absolutely. I've since learned that the bard draws upon more than just the minstrel for inspiration, but because that's the way 3.5 most strongly presents the character and the part of it that's most rubbed off on popular culture, it's colored what I see as the default fluff of the class. The Celtic lorekeeper version of the bard, as opposed to the magical foppish minstrel, has managed almost no cultural traction, somehow. (I think it's interesting as a concept personally, but I can't claim that it has any foothold in the mindspace of what a bard is.) I feel as if I only hear about it in discussions of the history of the D&D bard class on the internet, where it inevitably comes up. I don't think somebody reading the 3.5 bard description would ever get that; the bard is described as more or less the magical musical JoaT, with a big emphasis on the music. Heck, they're even prohibited from being lawful.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I've always pictured the Bard being the inspiring trickster who works from the shadows or behind the front lines. He's not the type who'd want to "tank up" and enter a scrum directly. The "Hard Bard" was a sado-masochistic method actor and was jettisoned for that reason.
While I appreciate and respect your opinion, I humbly disagree.

The bard archetype goes back to celtic myth. He's more than just a minstrel. He's a trickster who casts enchantments and illusions, and soothes wounds.

He's just became entwined with the minstrel, probably due to D&D's influence, that he's gained the foppish support role (not that I mind it personally, I love playing bards exactly this way, quick to gab, and drink, and sing, but slow to pick up a sword).

I think there's room in the game for both archetypes. And even a third that Mearls probably thinks is in warlord territory: the skald!

I can't see William Wallace as a bard, but... if you call him a skald. I can almost swallow it.

Oh, absolutely. I've since learned that the bard draws upon more than just the minstrel for inspiration, but because that's the way 3.5 most strongly presents the character and the part of it that's most rubbed off on popular culture, it's colored what I see as the default fluff of the class. The Celtic lorekeeper version of the bard, as opposed to the magical foppish minstrel, has managed almost no cultural traction, somehow. (I think it's interesting as a concept personally, but I can't claim that it has any foothold in the mindspace of what a bard is.) I feel as if I only hear about it in discussions of the history of the D&D bard class on the internet, where it inevitably comes up. I don't think somebody reading the 3.5 bard description would ever get that; the bard is described as more or less the magical musical JoaT, with a big emphasis on the music. Heck, they're even prohibited from being lawful.



I see a lot of the celtic bard in almost all editions (though 3e is more sparce) In 1e especially, you had to spend time as a fighter, then rogue, then learn druid spells.

In 2e they presented it in a different way, making the bard a type of rogue who casts illusions and echantments. Mimicing the way the celtic bards would lay satires on the eyes of their enemies and make them lose their courage.

4e gave us both kinds. The warrior bard and the illusionist bard. and Later the Skald in the feywild book.

The minstrel bit has always had a place, and honestly, has a bit more traction with me personally, but I like the other version as well.

Also, this may just be a personal thing but I have always associated the Red Mage from the Final Fantasy games with the bard. Probably because of the hat and manner of dress, but it helped cement my opinion of the bard as a dabbler class. 
I find it interesting that a lot of the warlord's more effective imagery is more modern and most of the bard's effective imagery is more medieval.

Mar 11, 2013 -- 10:04AM, Lesp wrote:

Mar 11, 2013 -- 8:52AM, bengilmer wrote:

While I appreciate and respect your opinion, I humbly disagree.

The bard archetype goes back to celtic myth. He's more than just a minstrel. He's a trickster who casts enchantments and illusions, and soothes wounds.

He's just became entwined with the minstrel, probably due to D&D's influence, that he's gained the foppish support role (not that I mind it personally, I love playing bards exactly this way, quick to gab, and drink, and sing, but slow to pick up a sword).

I think there's room in the game for both archetypes. And even a third that Mearls probably thinks is in warlord territory: the skald!

I can't see William Wallace as a bard, but... if you call him a skald. I can almost swallow it.


Oh, absolutely. I've since learned that the bard draws upon more than just the minstrel for inspiration, but because that's the way 3.5 most strongly presents the character and the part of it that's most rubbed off on popular culture, it's colored what I see as the default fluff of the class. The Celtic lorekeeper version of the bard, as opposed to the magical foppish minstrel, has managed almost no cultural traction, somehow. (I think it's interesting as a concept personally, but I can't claim that it has any foothold in the mindspace of what a bard is.) I feel as if I only hear about it in discussions of the history of the D&D bard class on the internet, where it inevitably comes up. I don't think somebody reading the 3.5 bard description would ever get that; the bard is described as more or less the magical musical JoaT, with a big emphasis on the music. Heck, they're even prohibited from being lawful.




I see a lot of the celtic bard in almost all editions (though 3e is more sparce) In 1e especially, you had to spend time as a fighter, then rogue, then learn druid spells.

In 2e they presented it in a different way, making the bard a type of rogue who casts illusions and echantments. Mimicing the way the celtic bards would lay satires on the eyes of their enemies and make them lose their courage.

4e gave us both kinds. The warrior bard and the illusionist bard. and Later the Skald in the feywild book.

The minstrel bit has always had a place, and honestly, has a bit more traction with me personally, but I like the other version as well.

Also, this may just be a personal thing but I have always associated the Red Mage from the Final Fantasy games with the bard. Probably because of the hat and manner of dress, but it helped cement my opinion of the bard as a dabbler class. 


Interesting. Remember that Final Fantasy has the Bard as a separated class. Actually, the archetypal Bard concept in my head is the Final Fantasy Bard.
Interesting. Remember that Final Fantasy has the Bard as a separated class. Actually, the archetypal Bard concept in my head is the Final Fantasy Bard.

FF bards are very much inspiring.

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

From an imagination and roleplay standpoint the bard is in no way similar to the warlord. The warlord is a driven leader, while I see the bard as more laid-back not taking even the most deadly fight too seriously.

However from a mechanic standpoint they are very similar. Both have healing abilites, inspiring abilities and limited weapon proficiencies. This is why they will probably be grouped together into a class. As to why the class is the bard and not the warlord is probably because the bard is a staple of D&D whereas the warlord only existed in 4e.

I feel bad for warlord fans who feel like their class is getting screwed over (and it kind of is), but you can roleplay the character any way you want. If you don't want your leader to feel like a bard, don't play him like one the rulebook can't tell you how to roleplay. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
Interesting. Remember that Final Fantasy has the Bard as a separated class. Actually, the archetypal Bard concept in my head is the Final Fantasy Bard.



True, but when I was a kid, Final Fantasy I was all I had. It was years before we got Final Fantasy II on the Super Nintendo (FFIV if you only know the japanese names/rereleases).

I distinctly DON'T think of Bards as the Final Fantasy bards because I hate Edward.
From an imagination and roleplay standpoint the bard is in no way similar to the warlord. The warlord is a driven leader, while I see the bard as more laid-back not taking even the most deadly fight too seriously.

However from a mechanic standpoint they are very similar. Both have healing abilites, inspiring abilities and limited weapon proficiencies. This is why they will probably be grouped together into a class. As to why the class is the bard and not the warlord is probably because the bard is a staple of D&D whereas the warlord only existed in 4e.

I feel bad for warlord fans who feel like their class is getting screwed over (and it kind of is), but you can roleplay the character any way you want. If you don't want your leader to feel like a bard, don't play him like one the rulebook can't tell you how to roleplay. 



Also, if they take away the bard's ability to cast arcane spells to be more like the warlord, it's a kick in the teeth to bard fans too.
From an imagination and roleplay standpoint the bard is in no way similar to the warlord. The warlord is a driven leader, while I see the bard as more laid-back not taking even the most deadly fight too seriously.

However from a mechanic standpoint they are very similar. Both have healing abilites, inspiring abilities and limited weapon proficiencies. This is why they will probably be grouped together into a class. As to why the class is the bard and not the warlord is probably because the bard is a staple of D&D whereas the warlord only existed in 4e.

I feel bad for warlord fans who feel like their class is getting screwed over (and it kind of is), but you can roleplay the character any way you want. If you don't want your leader to feel like a bard, don't play him like one the rulebook can't tell you how to roleplay. 

I've no major objection with combining bards and warlord (better then the fighter).

But bard fans might.  Because a "war bard" would not have spells, rogue skills, or a lute.  All very iconic for the bard class.  Which i suppose is my real question.

"Would bard fans be upset if spell casting and rogue skills where not a core bard thing?"

5e houserules and tweaks.

Celestial Link Evoking Radiance into Creation

A Party Without Music is Lame: A Bard

Level Dip Guide

 

4e stuff

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

As big a fan as I am of the Warlord - I think it could easily be its own class - I would be okay with it merging with the bard if I could figure out what on earth to do with the bard's spellcasting. Like, if you look at bard stuff, they have...

- Reasonable weapon-based attack capabilities - this is fine for the warlord
- Reasonable defensive capabilities - this is fine for the warlord
- Performance-based inspiration that improves allies' performance - if you ease up a bit on the musical element, or just say that some bards inspire a little more directly, this is fine for the warlord
- Bardic Knowledge - Not that weird on a warlord, and arguably even a pretty good fit
- Support, enhancement, healing, harassment and illusion magic (3.5 bards get some other random stuff, like summoning, but I feel as though these are core) - This is pretty awkward on the warlord. This is the overt spellcasting.
- Performance-based miscellanea: Fascinate, Countersong and the like. I'm just not going to worry about this stuff.

I guess you could have a heavily bifurcated class that has the option to choose between light spellcasting and... some other benefit, I guess. It'd totally be easiest if we just said that Warlord is the class and bards, as presented in 3.5, are multiclass warlord/wizards, but that involves making Warlord the base class, and for the sake of this idea we're trying to make bard the base class.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
"Would bard fans be upset if spell casting and rogue skills where not a core bard thing?"



Absolutely. If I had to turn my 4e bard into a multiclass rogue/wizard to get the feel right, then WotC failed at creating the bard in my eyes.
To me, the bard is the combination character. Less jack of all trades as much or Master of None (except lore and inspiration) but the ability to combine one moderate aspect will another moderate aspect to create power.
Much like a cleric but less focused on the Magic+
Weapons.

The bard could have a weak heal but use a song to heal more targets. The bard would have a moderate weapon attack enhanced by his magically buffs or encouraging lyric. A bard isn't just a charmer, his voice hides the effects of the enchantment he did cast.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Interestingly I've never thought of a Bard as a "leader" (of course any character can lead a party, but it's not their iconic image). They're certainly inspiring. The jack of all trades aspect needs to be reflected in this game too.
I'm not a big bard fan myself, but it seemed to me that the point of the bard was to be a jack of all trades.  He had skills, spells, martial ability  and some leader ability.  Effectively a rogue/wizard(druid)/fighter/warlord/artificer(?) multiclass.

But in the recent podcast, Merls seemed to think the warlord would be stepping on his toes.  Implying that it core funtion was to be an inspiring leader, and not a jack of all trades.

Mearls specifically states that 'inspiration' is the bard's thing, not 'leadership'.

The bard, within the game of Dungeons & Dragons, is personified as a wanderer who is glib of tongue, light of heart, and fleet of foot; a storehouse of history and news, a messenger, an ambassador, a storyteller; owing his main strength to communication.

His music, poetry, and stories influence reactions, fascinate, inspire, rally, counter magical attacks, and hold a magic all their own.

He is the 'able hero', capable of swordplay, magecraft, and a knack for skill-use.


So bard, fans, which is it?
1) Jack of all, (including a bit of leading).
2) Primaraly a leader, with lockpicking.

Or to put it another way..

Would bard fans be upset if spell casting and rogue skills where not a core bard thing?

I would be upset if spellcasting and a knack for skill-use were not a core bard 'thing', yes.

The bard is able to inspire by virtue of his contribution to the narrative. The verisimilitude breakdown posited by Mand12 is the key reason why the bard must be 'able', and his 'ableness' must allow him to enter the fray, lend a hand, and be a part of the action. The bard must have the opportunity to stand beside you with a sword and harry your opponent while allowing you to succeed at a killing blow; he must be able to engage with the trap you're working on in order to inspire you with the competence needed to clear your head and get us out of here alive; he must be able to bring forth subtle magic with his words in order to make evident the capability hidden within oneself; he must be able to say 'look, if I got this, you got this, let's go'.
Without being 'able', the bard is just standing idly by with a lute in his hand doing a whole bunch of nothing.

Danny

FF bards are very much inspiring.

I don't know if this was ironic or serious but yeah! Final Fantasy Bards are great support characters. Either way that's what I think when someone says "Bard".


True, but when I was a kid, Final Fantasy I was all I had. It was years before we got Final Fantasy II on the Super Nintendo (FFIV if you only know the japanese names/rereleases).

I distinctly DON'T think of Bards as the Final Fantasy bards because I hate Edward.

Hahahaha. Edward is not the only Bard in all FF series, although.

And no, I don't think that the Bard and the Warlord are so similar, so I'm okay with them being separated classes. I wouldn't like it to Bards to lose the spellcasting part.

mrpopstar you have when and where he said that?
I'm not a big bard fan myself, but it seemed to me that the point of the bard was to be a jack of all trades.  He had skills, spells, martial ability  and some leader ability.  Effectively a rogue/wizard(druid)/fighter/warlord/artificer(?) multiclass.

But in the recent podcast, Merls seemed to think the warlord would be stepping on his toes.  Implying that it core funtion was to be an inspiring leader, and not a jack of all trades.

Mearls specifically states that 'inspiration' is the bard's thing, not 'leadership'.


The bard, within the game of Dungeons & Dragons, is personified as a wanderer who is glib of tongue, light of heart, and fleet of foot; a storehouse of history and news, a messenger, an ambassador, a storyteller; owing his main strength to communication.

His music, poetry, and stories influence reactions, fascinate, inspire, rally, counter magical attacks, and hold a magic all their own.

He is the 'able hero', capable of swordplay, magecraft, and a knack for skill-use.


So bard, fans, which is it?
1) Jack of all, (including a bit of leading).
2) Primaraly a leader, with lockpicking.

Or to put it another way..

Would bard fans be upset if spell casting and rogue skills where not a core bard thing?

I would be upset if spellcasting and a knack for skill-use were not a core bard 'thing', yes.

The bard is able to inspire by virtue of his contribution to the narrative. The verisimilitude breakdown posited by Mand12 is the key reason why the bard must be 'able', and his 'ableness' must allow him to enter the fray, lend a hand, and be a part of the action. The bard must have the opportunity to stand beside you with a sword and harry your opponent while allowing you to succeed at a killing blow; he must be able to engage with the trap you're working on in order to inspire you with the competence needed to clear your head and get us out of here alive; he must be able to bring forth subtle magic with his words in order to make evident the capability hidden within oneself; he must be able to say 'look, if I got this, you got this, let's go'.
Without being 'able', the bard is just standing idly by with a lute in his hand doing a whole bunch of nothing.




*Standing ovation*
mrpopstar you have when and where he said that?

Listen to the recent podcast. The conversation states more than once that 'inspiration is the bard's thing'.


*Standing ovation*



Danny

Reality trumps photoshop



Inspiring music in battle is a real thing



Has been for years

Just sayin


"The Apollo moon landing is off topic for this thread and this forum. Let's get back on topic." Crazy Monkey

Define 'leader'.  Not all mechanical leaders lead.  Not all party heads have mechanical "leader" Abilities.  A bard is, to me, usually goign to fall into the former camp:  They're perfectly suited to the mechanical aspects of leader: Grant others extra actions, give your allies plusses, and so on.  Thematically, they won't always fit but... well, Images


"Enjoy your screams, Sarpadia - they will soon be muffled beneath snow and ice."

 

Follow me to No Goblins Allowed

A M:tG/D&D message board with a good community and usable software

 


THE COALITION WAR GAME -Phyrexian Chief Praetor
Round 1: (4-1-2, 1 kill)
Round 2: (16-8-2, 4 kills)
Round 3: (18-9-2, 1 kill)
Round 4: (22-10-0, 2 kills)
Round 5: (56-16-3, 9 kills)
Round 6: (8-7-1)

Last Edited by Ralph on blank, 1920

I've always pictured the bard anywhere between a spellcasting artist and con-man and a viking skald.

So that said, the warlord never quite fit with me - the warlord was stepping on the bard's toes if you ask me.

LEONINE ROAR : Amp Up Your D&D Game : Visit my D&D blog :: FASTER COMBAT : Crush Your Combat Grind

I think it's telling that the bard will apparently be the last non-original phb1 class to be playtested (they've said paladin, ranger and druid are coming soon, and we've already had every other PHB1 class except for warlords, assassins and illusionists, all of whom got demoted to builds or specialties).

It's a tough nut to crack. In my mind, the closest class is actually the warlock: they both travel far and wide to attain secret lore. But obviously perceptions vary.

Mar 11, 2013 -- 11:40AM, cassi_brazuca wrote:

mrpopstar you have when and where he said that?


Listen to the recent podcast. The conversation states more than once that 'inspiration is the bard's thing'.


Mar 11, 2013 -- 11:44AM, bengilmer wrote:

*Standing ovation*






Someone have the transcript of it?
I think the key to 'rehabilitating' the bard is to understand that 'performance' can include rhetoric or the spoken word.



The William Wallace speech (or its predecessor, King Henry's St. Crispins's day speech) are examples of using rhetoric to inspire the troops and if they had been sung rather than spoken eveeryone would have immediately said 'Oh, that's a bard".




They are performances for the intent of inspiration.  They are what Bards do (in the inspiring leader category).


In fact - if you take the silly lutes and flutes away from the bard and allow them to use inspirational rhetoric as a performance device - you end up with something very similar to the warlord.


And note: "traditionally"  (in the game, not the RW):  The bard did not inspire the characters by singing or playing. They inspired the players through the spoken word.  From the 1st edition PHB:  The bards poetic ability raises the morale....  Note that while enganged in this activity, the bard can engage in melee combat but not any singing or spell casting  [emphases added]." 


Their singing had the effects of negating music based attacks (harpies, et al), and charming those who heard it.  THeir spells (druidical)  were cast as spells usually are.


But not only were they not requried to sing while inspiring - they were specifically unable to do so.  They also fought well and inspiried others at the same time because they had their hands free to hold a weapon and shield. 

The 'bard' is the warlord with spells and the sage background.    


Or rather:  Lets start with a class we'll call 'skald'.   This class fights well and can use performance to inspire the characters - the performance can be with an instrument, but usually isn't (because it is a lot easier to fight when you don't have a musical instrument in your hands - a fact that AD&D1st was well aware of but later editions lost sight of).  The performance is usually rhetoric, either inspirational speeches or poetic works.   Using this rhetoric, the class can motivate people to go on when they are down, make them fight harder, distract opponents, etc.  In short - they do much of what we expect of a warlord.  And a bard.



Differentiate the class a bit with 'performance styles' - including rhetoric, song and different musical benefits (perhaps the rhetoric comes with the temp hit points while the others come with something else).  

Take the rhetoric style, maybe add in a non-magical healer specialty and an appropriate background (likely a soldier but can be anything) and you have a classic warlord.        


Multiclass into a caster class (which class depends on whether you go with AD&D1st (Druid), AD&D2nd (Wizard), 3rd (Sorcerer) or 4th (more clerical than anything else).  Take a muscial style (AD&D specified it had to be a stringed instrument so for the real oldschool feel go 'lute') and the sage background - and you have a bard.        

And most importantly - you change the silly image of a fop with a lute prancing around the battlefied trying to hit people with their lute into William Wallace.  And the class likely becomes far more popular.



Aside:  A bard?

     


Carl


      

Okay, so here's my idea for the unified bard/warlord. I'm speaking generally in very general terms, so when I say "stuff like Commander's Strike", I don't mean necessarily literally an activated power that grants an ally an attack, but general stuff in that vein.

Your core bard features that you get if you're a bard, regardless of anything else, include basically all of that could conceivably be done by a bard or a warlord - bardic knowledge, various inspiration stuff, big chunks of the Warlord's schtick from 4e, possibly healing, and so on. I'm talking capabilities here, not specific mechanics. Those can be whatever works out and makes sense. These abilities are presenting as operating basically as your choice of musical, magical or simple extraordinary leadership talent - whatever you like. This is what all bards get regardless. A bard who wants to feel as magical as possible frames these as magical effects; a bard that wants to feel as musical as possible frames these as musical effects; a warlord phrases these as tactical and inspiring. Many bards phrase them as a combination of all three.

Then, on top of that, bards get another feature. Every few levels (don't worry too much about the actual frequency, it can be messed with), bards get a choice: They can take an "Arcane Dabbler" benefit or a "Battle Ready" benefit. They can choose the same benefit every time they level up, or they can mix and match. Whenever they take the Arcane Dabbler benefit, they get a spell known (chosen from a bard spell list, or possibly just "any wizard spell from school X, Y, or Z) and a spell slot. (Or possibly multiple; the exact number isn't important.) Whenever they take Battle Ready, they get a MDD (or its replacement) and a maneuver chosen from a bard maneuver list.

A bard that takes Battle Ready every time is a Warlord or a 4e Melee Bard. A bard that takes Arcane Dabbler every time (Possibly taking at level 1 gives you a cantrip?) is like a 4e implement-using bard. A bard that mixes and matches is like a 4e mixed bard or like a 3.5 bard that spreads out his focus.

I think that that setup fits the warlord into the bard class without doing too much damage to either, assuming you get the numbers to a reasonable place.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.


Then, on top of that, bards get another feature. Every few levels (don't worry too much about the actual frequency, it can be messed with), bards get a choice: They can take an "Arcane Dabbler" benefit or a "Battle Ready" benefit. They can choose the same benefit every time they level up, or they can mix and match. Whenever they take the Arcane Dabbler benefit, they get a spell known (chosen from a bard spell list, or possibly just "any wizard spell from school X, Y, or Z) and a spell slot. (Or possibly multiple; the exact number isn't important.) Whenever they take Battle Ready, they get a MDD (or its replacement) and a maneuver chosen from a bard maneuver list.



Why would this not just be a specialty with feats added as you gain levels?


I suppose it really depends on what the class has with and without this feature.  If the class features stand on their own compared to the other classes, this probably ought to be an extra (specialty).  If this is a major part of what the class needs to work - then it could be a class feature. 

Carl
Sign In to post comments