Ah, but Diplomacy doesn't necessarily mean courtly etiquette, it may mean only that you know how to talk with people! It would also be a nod to what has always been a staple of the D&D Bard, the ability to influence (for the better) the reactions of the NPCs. Streetwise also bothers me a bit because I can come up with several types of Bards - Viking Skalds, or any Bard from a barbarian culture, and the old Meistersinger 2nd Edition kit, for example - for whom it would be inappropriate to have Streetwise.
every single viking skald ever born had the realworld equivelent of streetwise. period. many of them ALSO had diplomacy. the skald was more than just a warrior poet. he was a man that went amongst the people, all of them, from lord to jarl, and knew their ways. a bard who is a member of a barbarian tribe would be the most likely person in the tribe to have streetwise. i don't know how much you have studied viking era scandinavian and germanic culture, but all i've seen tells me that the skald knew more about surviving in what passed for urban areas than the medievil minstrels often did.
sure, this is moot now, because we have a preview to tell us what the bard has and doesn't have, but the idea of not giving a bard diplomacy AND streetwise seems strange to me.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
the skald was more than just a warrior poet. he was a man that went amongst the people, all of them, from lord to jarl, and knew their ways.
First of all: "lord" and "jarl" are pretty much the same thing. Second of all: what you're describing sounds more like Diplomacy than Streetwise.
a bard who is a member of a barbarian tribe would be the most likely person in the tribe to have streetwise.
Medieval Scandinavian society wasn't tribe-based, it was clan (or family, whichever term suits you best)-based.
i don't know how much you have studied viking era scandinavian and germanic culture,
A lot, actually. I'm majoring in Norse Literature, Norse Culture and Norse History.
but all i've seen tells me that the skald knew more about surviving in what passed for urban areas than the medievil minstrels often did.
London, Paris, Genoa and Venice, to name only capitals, were much larger - with a correspondingly larger population - than Norway's then-capital, Trondheim, so no - just no.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well. Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead. - Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality!(No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
Just read the preview for the Bard that will be in the PHB2 and I just had to comment.
First, alot of the class traits are darn close. Only a few differences like the implement, weapon list and a couple skills. I still think your Bard captures the feel of the bard better.
Like, they gave wands as the Bard's implement. Makes MUCH more sense for it to be an instrument. And I personally like the bard to get thievery and stealth. I can understand why they didnt because bards really arent thieves, but they got those kind of skills before so its kinda nice to still have them.
The Bard features on both are fine, though I think the PHB version does a good job there. The only one I really liked is the cantrips you gave them. Makes sense to me, being a magic user, to get a couple cantrips.
The few abilities (spells and such) they listed for the Bard are similar in feel to what you did, which is good.
So to sum up, if it were me, I would definitly keep the implement as an instrument, keep the cantrips and probably keep your skill list. The rest I would just go by the PHB I think, just to keep it "legal". With all the similarites, I really gotta wonder if they did pull any ideas from your Bard or others here.
Like, they gave wands as the Bard's implement. Makes MUCH more sense for it to be an instrument.
If I'm not mistaken, the same article mentioned special instruments which the Bard could use as implements.
Makes sense to me, being a magic user, to get a couple cantrips.
Then the Warlock and the Swordmage should also have Cantrips?
The few abilities (spells and such) they listed for the Bard are similar in feel to what you did, which is good.
Yes, but much more balanced. :heehee
With all the similarites, I really gotta wonder if they did pull any ideas from your Bard or others here.
Considering Saric, and everyone else, took inspiration from earlier incarnations of the Bard, I hardly think so.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well. Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead. - Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality!(No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
If I'm not mistaken, the same article mentioned special instruments which the Bard could use as implements.
Then the Warlock and the Swordmage should also have Cantrips?
Yes, but much more balanced. :heehee
Considering Saric, and everyone else, took inspiration from earlier incarnations of the Bard, I hardly think so.
Yes, it did mention instruments later in the article. Didnt notice it at the time of the post. Even still, its kinda odd to have wands as an implement at all.
Warlock no, seeing how its a completely different type of magic. Swordmage I dont know what that is, so I cant comment. However, bards in previous editions always got a small number of wizard spells, so cantrips are a cool idea that I like. They dont really do anything so I dont see the harm in bards having them.
Of course balanced. They have a team of playtesters for that..
What I meant from the last statement was how close all the stuff was 4E wise, like number of skills, HPs, number of surges, ect. And seeing how Saric came up with this almost half a year ago devs at Wizards could have easily gotten some inspiration from Sarics 4E bard.
I've been working (terribly slowly) on a fantasy medieval campaign handbook. That the Bard was missing from the PHB was an unpleasant problem. Given how it's taking forever-and-a-day for me to rewrite the Paladin as a medieval knight (instead of 4E's refugee from World of Warcraft), I wasn't looking forward to having to create a Bard-like class whole-cloth. Unfortunately, the rumors I heard about the forthcoming 4E Bard in the PHB2 don't give me much hope that it will be appropriate for a fantasy medieval campaign.
So I'd like to use Saric's idea as a basis for my fantasy medieval 4E Bard-like class, the Minstrel. A great many of the powers looks quite appropriate, though I would need to replace a few of the more "high magic" ones. Thanks for your work, Saric! Have you updated your powers since your last official PDF, from back in like September?
London, Paris, Genoa and Venice, to name only capitals, were much larger - with a correspondingly larger population - than Norway's then-capital, Trondheim, so no - just no.
I'm going to bother responding to your terminology clarification, mostly because it's not terribly important. as to the rest, I'll begin where I should have begun in the first place.
"Streewise:When in a settlement—a village, a town, or a city— make a Streetwise check to find out what’s going on, who the movers and shakers are, where to get what you need (and how to get there), and where not to go."
Seriously, in what way is this not something a Bard should be expected to be able to do?
Secondly, a court minstrel is often little more than a fop, whereas the Skald is, again, often someone who is expected to know what the hell is going on amongst the people, high and low. This is done, in 4e, through the Streetwise skill.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Seriously, in what way is this not something a Bard should be expected to be able to do?
The archetypical fantasy Bard? Sure. A Norse Skald? Not necessarily.
Secondly, a court minstrel is often little more than a fop,
Oh good Lord, you didn't just apply what is mostly a fantasy stereotype to a historical profession, did you? Also, Norse Skalds were the court minstrels of their people.
whereas the Skald is, again, often someone who is expected to know what the hell is going on amongst the people, high and low. This is done, in 4e, through the Streetwise skill.
Not necessarily, no. The point is now moot, however: there's an official Bard ready to be released, and while he has the option of learning Streetwise, he doesn't automatically start with it - which is exactly what I've been arguing for.
Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But the good name never dies of one who has done well. Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal. But I know one thing that never dies: the glory of the great dead. - Hávamál
D&D 4th Edition Bard builds: The Dashing Swordsman, The Master of Sound and Illusions, The Warrior Skald
Captain Morality!(No point in not having fun with it. ;-))
The archetypical fantasy Bard? Sure. A Norse Skald? Not necessarily.
Oh good Lord, you didn't just apply what is mostly a fantasy stereotype to a historical profession, did you? Also, Norse Skalds were the court minstrels of their people.
Not necessarily, no. The point is now moot, however: there's an official Bard ready to be released, and while he has the option of learning Streetwise, he doesn't automatically start with it - which is exactly what I've been arguing for.
Seriously, explain how it is that it doesn't make sense for the skald to have streetwise. i don't mean that you're saying it makes no sense whatsoever, I'm just curious as why you think that it doesn't make a great deal of sense.
and when you think of a court minstrel, do you really think of anything other than the archetype of a the minstrel tied to the royal court who spends pretty much his whole time in the court either vying for favor or watching people and reporting to the king or what have you? also, note that i "is often" not "was always" or "was predominately." this usage suggests that i am referring to a variable number of people that may be relatively small, while the fact that i am making a note of it suggests that i am proposing that the archetype is well known enough to take into account. The image of the skald archetype is rather different than the image of the medieval courtly minstrel.
yes, it's all moot now. in my opinion, still, if arcana wasn't more necessary mechanically than any of the other skills, it would make sense for your automatic skill to be choice of diplomacy and streetwise.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
Honestly, I really dont understand why you two are arguing over that. I mean, the bard is so very loosly based on real life anyways. Minstrils and such were the lowest members of the court usually, and of course in D&D they are anything but. And of course lets not forget the magic and all the other crap that has nothing to do with real life.
So really, who cares? When it comes to Saric's bard, we only need to worry about how it compares to past D&D versions, and nothing else.
