Community

I thought it would be cool to open up discussion on the bard.  I think shared opinions on what a bard "is" would be interesting, be they opinions on mechanical distinctions, narrative "place" in the world, or any other germane considerations.

But specifically, in light of recent comments by Mearls regarding the bard, I think discussing how "arcane" the bard is is a discussion worth having.

I don't think it is presumptuous to state that the vast majority of players view the bard as at least partially arcane, and that magic of some form is a major component of the class identity.  But exactly how magical is the class (to you)?

If I were designing 5e, I would probably be designing a unified mechanic at a system level that applies to all the classes (akin to 4e, though maybe not exactly alike in specific implementation).  However, that ship has clearly sailed, and given the established design paradigm of 5e so far, I think bards are best served not as a "spellcaster" in the traditional sense.  Basically, I don't see spell slots or spell points as evocative of a bard.

As far as a stereotypical "place" in the world, I view the bard as an explorer and chronicler, the one who knows the legends and fables, sees the truth in the tall tales, and goes on adventures to uncover those mysteries while writing new stories about himself and his companions. 

Stereotypically, I view the bard as being musical, though I personally like the idea of being able to easily refluff the bards musical skill as some other performance, like oratory/rhetoric, or performance.  What is important is that there is an undercurrent of storytelling to the bard's art.  I am reminded of Tolkien, and the frequent songs and poems featured in his books.  Not only are the songs described as providing succor or inspiration to the weary hearts of the listeners, but they explain moments of history and legend, connecting the present to the past.  Not to mention that song and music is fundamental and functionally equivalent to creation in Middle-Earth, what with the gods essentially singing Middle-Earth into existence.  For me the bard is decidedly NOT the parody that Elan from Giant in the Playground ("Bluff! Bluff! Bluff the Stupid Orc!").  When the bard is weaving his magic, he is telling a story, tying it to the experiences of the party.

In a way, the bard is very "meta".  He is telling the story in the story, much like how Tolkien uses the framing device of "The Red Book" in the LotR saga.  Within the text, Bilbo and Frodo write the Red Book, leaving some pages for Sam.  Their respective entries are "There And Back Again" and "The Lord of the Rings" which are in effect the texts themselves.  The novels are presented to us by Tolkien with him in the role of bard/historian.  Tolkien effectively presents his words as theirs, and their words as his.

I don't see the bard as a "spell prep" sort of guy.  I think the bard is best served as being impomptu, and off-the-cuff.  Mearls mentioned the warlock as a possible guideline.  While I don't think the specific implementation of the warlock (magic abilities fueled by "favors" from a pact), the at-will essence of the warlock is, I feel, the right direction.

I don't see the bard as even having spells in the traditional i.e. wizard sense.  I don't see the bard as being a weak wizard who can sing.  I think that the magic should come from the song itself.  Words and music have power, and resonate with the very rhythm and frequency of the world.  The bard doesn't merely chant or recite like a wizard does.  He gets in tune to the harmony of things, and lets his song resonate with the song of creation.

As magical as that seems, I don't view the bard as being overtly magical.  I don't imagine visual waves of magic emanating from the bard, like I do with the wizard or cleric.  I certainly don't see magical colored notes wafting through the air!  No, the bard's magic is subtle and is felt, rather than seen.  It has more similarities to charm or illusion magic, but it isn't meant to deceive or coerce.  Rather, it changes the way you feel, on the inside.  It is inspiring, and demoralizing, and it invites self-reflection.

If I were to get into the nitty-gritty mechanical details, I would favor a few effective, infinitely repeatable abilities of broad applicability but limited influence.  Something akin to the fighter's CS or the warlock's invocation mechanic, in that the character possesses a few abilities that can be performed, with limits, again and again and again.  I probably wouldn't have it expressed in the form of spendable dice.  As a mechanical wrinkle, I think a duration mechanic that can extend effects ("I'm still siiiiiniiiiing!") would be a nice thing to set the class apart.  As well, there should be a "ritualized" form of bardic magic, when the party sits down and rests, and the bard imparts them with a tale well told, or a song well sung.

On top of that, a means to seek out and interpret knowledge is essential to getting that historian aspect.

Moreover, since the class isn't slinging spells left and right, having a general competence in combat is warranted.  I imagine the bard is the class best served on its own, if ever a class had to go solo.  Light armor, agile, and capable of not only defending itself with a blade (and possibly shield), but striking down those that threaten it.  I would say at least as melee-capable as the rogue, without the spike damage of a sneak attack.

What say you, everybody?

I like the spell-casting, and not just the "arcane" kind (one of my favourite characters was a 2nd Ed Al-Qadim Bard/Rawun kit), I also dig the "druidical tutelage" action of 1st Ed.

I think your take on the bard is nice, but very specific. A good starting point, or default (please don't let the default discussion respawn!), but I would like to see an even broader class.
The wizardly bard, while not my favorite, makes sense too what with his knowledge gathering and all.
On the other end of the spectrum I want to see a fighter using wits and psychology in conjunction with a heavy blade cutting tunes in the air (and the flesh of enemies). Mostly though I want to rid the class of the Elanish

Oct 22, 2012 -- 11:22PM, Lokiron wrote:

I think your take on the bard is nice, but very specific. A good starting point, or default (please don't let the default discussion respawn!), but I would like to see an even broader class. The wizardly bard, while not my favorite, makes sense too what with his knowledge gathering and all. On the other end of the spectrum I want to see a fighter using wits and psychology in conjunction with a heavy blade cutting tunes in the air (and the flesh of enemies). Mostly though I want to rid the class of the Elanish

Oh I agree, my take on the bard is very specific.  It is, in essence, my take.  What I hoped came across is that how one could reflavor it to be more or less magical.  Looking at pure mechanics, I'm seeking simple repeatable effects (the specifics I leave up to the designers, though I favor bonuses to attacks, defenses, skill checks, and a modicum of inspirational healing).  Precisely how those effects are described is up to the player and DM.  Personally, I describe it as I did in my post.

I think they should boil the bard down to it's basic elements like they have with every other class, and then give them archetype choices. Basic elements include Music or Oration of some sort and generally an aptitude for lore and skills. From there let the different kind of bards be the deciding factor. For instance a Skald is a rough and tough poet, viking/icelandic origin. So let him gain ability that represent as such. Armor and weapon proficiencies, more combat related music, maybe less spells, etc. Charltons, musicians, storytellers, and lore keepers alike share the same basic bones, but different ways of going about their craft. As far as spells go, it's either all or nothing. In my experience taking spells out sometimes drastically imbalances some archetypes, ergo I would say keep spells in but perhaps differ the amount given per archetype.

A good example of this is pathfinder's take on bard archetypes. I think it's a step in the right direction.