tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post5565151238665662281..comments2024-03-23T08:21:07.075-07:00Comments on Points of Light: 5th Edition: The Uninspired BardDavid Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comBlogger78125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-89037075228197767132016-08-01T21:36:08.288-07:002016-08-01T21:36:08.288-07:00Alright lets take a step back for a minute and con...Alright lets take a step back for a minute and consider that the root of this argument is ultimately the clunky nature of the Magic/Spellcasting and the Bardic Inspiration system in D&D 5e. Now, I have played a ton of different gaming systems in many different settings. And all of that has taught me one valuable thing - Narrative and Optimization often have to trade off for one another.<br /><br />Now, for sake of argument, lets say that Spellcasting worked in a more narrative way. Now ultimately that would mean the nature of magic would be dependent on your world setting, but for simplicity sake I am going to just say that you are tapping into the innate energy of the universe. Obviously we have to put some kind of restraint on it, otherwise the Risk of Melee combat or ranged weaponry would be rather underpowered in comparison and would make any non-caster essentially pointless. Since most campaigns tend to take place in a setting where magic users aren't all that uncommon but really powerful ones are, it would hardly make sense for spellcasting to exert no effort at all.<br /><br />Now the only ways I think of mechanically implementing this would be some variant of these methods:<br /><br />-There is a cost/resource associated with the spell (Mana pool, spell points, etc.)<br /><br /><br />-There is a roll necessary for most if not all spells to be cast at all (Akin to a DC but to actually even cast the spell; "[PC] tries to cast [Spell], and must get a roll of [Number] or higher")<br /><br />-Or the system they used. Limiting spell quantity over a given amount of time.<br /><br />The reason they don't do the first system is obvious - they like keeping class resources simple. There would be a lot of bookkeeping with this and it would likely lead to a lot of potential for cheating (which admittedly already happens enough with HP). This is not a system that helps the DM, plain an simple.<br /><br />The second one falls into a different problem - they either are too easy or too hard. When you are a spellcaster, you are generally a glass cannon within the group. This means that you want your abilities to work when you want to use them. But in a dice-roll-based system, as anyone who has ever had to roll for any DC ever can tell you, the dice are not your friend (or not always, at least). So setting the thresholds too high and making it nearly impossible to cast essentially gimps the class. Conversely, setting it too low would make any spellcaster a big 'FU' to the DM's set upped encounters, since they would defintially outclass any melee. or physical. This too also falls into the bookkeeping problem, where you would have to determining the spell cast threshold always.<br /><br />I think I made my point, and I still didn't identify all the potential pitfalls of these systems, yet I have seem similar for a ton of differing Gaming system.They all fall short somewhere.<br /><br />Anyway... just adding my two cents.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14228222764991110398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-32937643250198066362016-05-06T22:53:53.447-07:002016-05-06T22:53:53.447-07:00Says the whiny bitch that can't refute what I&...Says the whiny bitch that can't refute what I'm saying. :-PDavid Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-18734500515212679712016-05-06T21:52:25.724-07:002016-05-06T21:52:25.724-07:00crybabycrybabyKlarth.Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15583695424775946074noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-24627743965709639562016-02-24T10:52:33.628-08:002016-02-24T10:52:33.628-08:00@Anon: Blindly loyal and ravenous fanboys can be p...@Anon: Blindly loyal and ravenous fanboys can be pretty funny.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-45014535651766044942016-02-21T23:13:46.667-08:002016-02-21T23:13:46.667-08:00Come for the title: stay to read the comment secti...Come for the title: stay to read the comment section.<br /><br />D&D discussions always turn into shitstorms.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-25296432915981240782015-08-02T10:10:31.426-07:002015-08-02T10:10:31.426-07:00@Martin: Thing is, I don't even think the game...@Martin: Thing is, I don't even think the game needs to evolve much to be good. WotC just had to look at all the nonsense and tweak/remove it. I'm much closer to being done with A Sundered World than I figured I'd be by now, but once it's done I'll be working on my own D&D-hack.<br /><br />It'll be interesting to see what traditionalists and 4E fans alike think about it.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-80114743597602986972015-07-31T21:58:10.611-07:002015-07-31T21:58:10.611-07:00Let's just be honest : this is the FIFTH versi...Let's just be honest : this is the FIFTH version of a board-game that looks like the SECOND version of any board-game that any kid could come up with after playing any computer game involving classes, levels, combat, and a story. When you make people PAY to select a class "that can be any other class too at the same time", PAY to fight with a FLUTE, PAY to have to say "we need to rest right here in the cave like all the other times because I have already healed you today", PAY to play a MONK, PAY to make your weasel "fight instead of you this round"........ well I could continue for hours. Let's just say that you guys, are stuck with the brand of a game that is disastrously lacking any sense of evolution whatsoever, right from the start. You're just stuck with it, or at least you must be thinking so.Martin Dumashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06100609034016758862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-32393418832584818652015-07-19T11:51:49.279-07:002015-07-19T11:51:49.279-07:00@John: Are you talking about the blog post or comm...@John: Are you talking about the blog post or comments?<br /><br />Out of all the D&D and D&D-like games (including clones), 4E is also my favorite, though I wish it wasn't so complicated. I can figure everything out, no problem, but many in my gaming group forget about various bonuses, or don't really think about what powers/feats can do. <br /><br />I agree that combat is at its best in 4E, but wish it would go by faster. Reducing hit points and defenses is a good way to do this: when I first ran A Sundered World, I reduced each monster to needing 1-5 "hits" to kill (based on side, role, type, and whether they were minion, standard, elite, or solo).<br /><br />"I actually came to read your take on the bard, rather than the edition wars stuff. I think you are pretty hard on the concept of the bard, and I can get that. A lot of people hate the general concept."<br /><br />I don't hate the general concept, but the stagnant, nonsense interpretation over the past decades. It's like no one at WotC actually talked about how/why the bard does things, and instead just kept repeating what was in the previous edition.<br /><br />"Personally I view the music as a way of accessing magic, and for me it is just as conceptually sound as finger waving and tossing pinches of sulfur into the air. Any way you think about it, magic would probably be something incredibly difficult to do in the middle of combat...But for most games, combat magic is sort of a thing. So, compromises and all that. i don't find the fictional justification terribly hard, and could bore you with several thoughts on bard magic, but I will save us both and avoid that."<br /><br />I also think that their music is a way of accessing magic, but I don't think that all magic would be hard to use in combat (or even stressful situations). Like, in The Dresden Files, he just kind of releases uncontrolled energy. In The Name of the Wind, it takes more time to do certain things, but that could be fixed by taking 2+ rounds to work something out. That's more how I see bard magic working: it takes time, certainly more than 3ish seconds.<br /><br />"I see you have your own version of the Bard out, I'm going to guess you made them less castery? I saw a short preview of it, and it looked like you took out the Bard's healing and inspiration stuff and instead made them into Lullaby/Sleep types? Suppose I should go buy it and find out!"<br /><br />It's for Dungeon World, but it captures both the bard concept AND makes sense "in-game/character/narrative/etc". <br /><br />Their music is subtle and requires buildup (like, well, music): you can heal, but not in combat. When you rest, everyone regains more hp. Their music can captivate people, but again it doesn't work in combat (though in play, a player used it when goblins were approaching to make them befriend her before swords were drawn).<br /><br />They'll also good with lore, telling stories, and fighting, and this part evokes what I wish 5E would have done: when you level up, you get to choose how your bard improves. You don't get better and gain new ways to use your magic when I the designer says so. You don't lock in your bard style early on. No, if you wanna get better at fighting, do that. If you want to heal your party even more when you rest, do that.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-7421068218326368562015-07-18T13:00:11.061-07:002015-07-18T13:00:11.061-07:00Well...that was a trip to read.
So much hate for ...Well...that was a trip to read. <br />So much hate for 4E. I get being uncomfortable with it. It was different and people were expecting the same old game with slight changes and minor improvements. Instead they got a game that was by and large rebuilt from the ground up. My own gaming group at the time it came out were among those that tried it (barely) then ran away to play other games. Later I would buy the whole product line in used games sections and I decided I really liked a lot the designers had brought to the system. Sure, combats lasted longer, but they were a lot more fun than the combats in previous editions, especially for non-casters. The mechanics were easy to use in actual play. Though the combats were long, they ran so much smoother than Mathfinder combats. <br />I would have loved 5e to carry a lot more of 4e into it, instead of retreating to older editions, but I think it is definitely better than 3/3.5 or Pathfinder. I'd still rather play 4 personally. <br /><br />I actually came to read your take on the bard, rather than the edition wars stuff. I think you are pretty hard on the concept of the bard, and I can get that. A lot of people hate the general concept. Personally I view the music as a way of accessing magic, and for me it is just as conceptually sound as finger waving and tossing pinches of sulfur into the air. Any way you think about it, magic would probably be something incredibly difficult to do in the middle of combat...But for most games, combat magic is sort of a thing. So, compromises and all that. i don't find the fictional justification terribly hard, and could bore you with several thoughts on bard magic, but I will save us both and avoid that. <br />I see you have your own version of the Bard out, I'm going to guess you made them less castery? I saw a short preview of it, and it looked like you took out the Bard's healing and inspiration stuff and instead made them into Lullaby/Sleep types? Suppose I should go buy it and find out!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13067210364265000810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-28859354404223475712015-07-17T20:10:03.061-07:002015-07-17T20:10:03.061-07:00"For instance, I have little problem reinterp..."For instance, I have little problem reinterpreting bardic inspiration: it can be a form of pagan blessing (think of it as a minor wiccan prayer), akin to the cleric's divine blessing but whose origin is some supernatural being (let's say, a very powerful Fae). Or it could be a personification of the "rule of cool": bards can bend reality and make a success out of a failure out of sheer coolness, anime-style. These reinterpretations don't need to be written in the book, and in fact it's BETTER that they're not in the book. I prefer the book to have well oiled mechanics over which I can cultivate my own fluff."<br /><br />So...you can now bless people in a fraction of a second x times per day. Do you realize that this doesn't make it somehow make any more sense than it already didn't?<br /><br />The mechanics aren't "well-oiled", they're just...old. This is why I didn't buy into 5E: if I want to play 3E, I can. If I want to play 2E, I can. I don't need to rebuy a different set of books that has bards that can for no discernible reason inspire people x times per day.<br /><br />"Also, there's nothing stopping you redesigning the bard class for a game you're GMing. Balancing the class will take work, but house rules are one of the beauties of pencil and paper RPG. For instance, when I GM, I intend to make paladins and rangers "prestige classes" (I think it's absurd to have level 1 paladins and rangers running around). And I intend to reinstate full Vancian casting to the wizards, because no true wizard would ever shirk from over analyzing it's spell selection."<br /><br />I write roleplaying game content for a substantial portion of my income, so I'm no stranger to designing and redesigning. While I could fix 5E, I can almost as easily make my own RPG, which is what I'm doing. This way I don't have to tell people I'm running a 5E game, just with a bunch of houserules: I can just show them a D&D-like game that we can play as-is.<br /><br />Great, you can make paladins and rangers prestige classes for whatever reason, and give full Vancian casting to wizards (dunno if you mean Vancian-Vancian, or 2E or 3E pseudo-Vancian, but knock yourself out). As with redesigning/reskinning/reflavoring Bardic Inspiration, this isn't a unique feature of 5E. It doesn't make it good. It doesn't counter my arguments of how the bard is boring and nonsense. Frankly, by not addressing what I'm said in the actual article, you're kind of proving my point: the bard doesn't make sense.<br /><br />"To conclude, I am happy with 5e, and I am very happy that 5e bards are mechanically very strong. I can understand how you wish 5e could come with more organic mechanics, a more coherent magical system and less tacky fluff, but I'm honestly more worried about having a solid core, and so far it's delivering. I am sure there are other systems which you might like better (Ars Magica comes to mind, though I never seriously played it), or better yet, go ahead and create a d20 game. D&D is meant to be a "mainstream" system (or at least as mainstream as a pencil and paper RPG can be), so it needs compromises which can be a bother to more experienced roleplayers."<br /><br />A "mainstream" game can still make sense AND have a solid core. They aren't mutually exclusive goals. I'm honestly surprised that so many people are praising 5E merely for retreading the past.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-48897984307543237152015-07-17T20:09:54.412-07:002015-07-17T20:09:54.412-07:00"Which leads us to your bard critique: while ..."Which leads us to your bard critique: while you seem to pick mostly on the bard, your critique seems to be at 5e class design as a whole. Every class arbitrarily doles out class features at set levels, and every class has a sub-class system. I say this is a reasonable compromise: to maintain some form of class balance without laying down a power system, classes choices need to be more constrained. I think this is more than reasonable, since I have so many other ways to customize my character (backgrounds, feats, free multiclassing, etc...)."<br /><br />Yes, every class in 5E is unnecessarily constrained. You aren't explaining why it must be this way in order to retain "class balance", or how it's even reasonable. The only "reason" I can see for its existence is that in older editions classes got things when the designers said so. This doesn't make it necessary, or even good.<br /><br />If anything, it comes across as lazy and, well, pandering.<br /><br />Classes in Numenera and Dungeon World both allow you to choose one thing each level, and I haven't heard anyone complain about a lack of balance, so...dunno why WotC couldn't figure it out.<br /><br />My argument is this: a more reasonable method would be to have you start as a class, and then pick the stuff you want when you level up. Something simple, yet still allowing flexibility. Soemthing that allows fighers to, say, choose if they want to deal more damage, be more resistant, have various maneuvers, etc. Not pick one thing and get locked in at the start. Why is this inferior to what 5E does?<br /><br />"Another critique of your regard the flavor of the bard class, with its silly bardic inspiration and unsubtle magic. To this I answer you that fluff is mutable. I don't mind having an RPG system come pre-flavored with generic fantasy stock because I realize this bland flavor is there for the benefit of new players. Since I am introducing new players to D&D, it's good to have the book come pre-stocked with generic tropes that they can use to participate in the game without too much hassle. "<br /><br />Your counter is basically, "it's fine because you can change it". That doesn't make it fine. You're basically saying that even an adventure with a boring story is fine, because a DM can just change the story or whatever and make it good. This doesn't excuse the quality. <br /><br />It would make more sense for a RPG to have actually interesting flavor, because you can always change it to something boring.<br /><br />You're also not addressing my criticism of Bardic Inspiration. Let me break it down for you:<br /><br />* You can use it as a bonus action. A round is 6 seconds long: in between running 30 feet and attacking someone, where are you finding the time to deliver some stirring words/play a solo on your lute?<br />* Why can you only use it x times per day? <br /><br />It's not "generic" fantasy stock. It's "generic D&D stock". How is generic D&D-stock good for new players? Why would it be worse/more difficult to introduce players if the game had...I dunno, interesting stock?David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-40321852674132225502015-07-17T20:09:39.454-07:002015-07-17T20:09:39.454-07:00@Claudio:
"A little defensive aren't we...@Claudio: <br /><br />"A little defensive aren't we David? I'll try to be polite to have a proper conversation."<br /><br />Not really. Someone decided to anonymously hurl insults (on a very old post, I might add), and I swung back. Just calling it like it is. If someone actually wants to actually address what I'm talking about, fine.<br /><br />"Let me tell you why I'm loving 5e (bards included): Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition is what 4th edition should have been. Streamlined rules without dumping "pointless traditions" which I happen to like. Rebalancing classes without watering down the class system. And most importantly, not overtly trying to pander to new players by bashing old rulesets."<br /><br />So, you're loving it because it's 3rd Edition.<br /><br />4th Edition didn't "water" down the class system. If anything, it made it much clearer what a given class was designed for. This is a good thing unlike, say, 3rd Edition, where fighters couldn't actually protect their allies from harm.<br /><br />Interesting how you claim that WotC was trying to "pander" to new players, when everything about 5E is pandering to old players, and it's not even trying to be innovative. I think 4E is much better than 5E. It has its flaws, but unlike most 5E fans I've talked to at least I can admit that my preferred edition has flaws.<br /><br />"I know 4e had good points, but dumping so many "pointless traditions" made me question WHY I shouldn't stick to 3.5e and get more mileage out of my good old books. Novelty requires a portion of familiarity, or else it's not good novelty, it's just shock. And that's where I think 5e got things right: it retained just enough flavor to not alienate me, and brought enough good stuff to make the jump worthwhile. Judging by 4e quick demise, PF's success and 5e good initial buzz, I think I am one among many."<br /><br />A better question is WHY you want, or possibly NEED, those pointless traditions at all. What about them makes them better than another rule that retains the flavor (or "feels", as Mearls puts it), but makes more sense, allows more choices, etc?<br /><br />4E retained the flavor AND felt familiar: at no point am I not aware that I'm playing D&D.<br /><br />My question is why aren't you still just sticking with 3rd Edition (or an even older edition)? That's what Paizo did. They plastered a bunch of Wayne Reynolds art all over their stuff to make it look cool, but it's still the same old, tired 3rd Edition.<br /><br />Aaand you wrap things up with an appeal to popularity. Great! Lots of women like Twilight, it MUST be good!David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-29412373482494852412015-07-16T13:33:49.031-07:002015-07-16T13:33:49.031-07:00A little defensive aren't we David? I'll t...A little defensive aren't we David? I'll try to be polite to have a proper conversation.<br /><br />Let me tell you why I'm loving 5e (bards included): Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition is what 4th edition should have been. Streamlined rules without dumping "pointless traditions" which I happen to like. Rebalancing classes without watering down the class system. And most importantly, not overtly trying to pander to new players by bashing old rulesets.<br /><br />I know 4e had good points, but dumping so many "pointless traditions" made me question WHY I shouldn't stick to 3.5e and get more mileage out of my good old books. Novelty requires a portion of familiarity, or else it's not good novelty, it's just shock. And that's where I think 5e got things right: it retained just enough flavor to not alienate me, and brought enough good stuff to make the jump worthwhile. Judging by 4e quick demise, PF's success and 5e good initial buzz, I think I am one among many.<br /><br />Which leads us to your bard critique: while you seem to pick mostly on the bard, your critique seems to be at 5e class design as a whole. Every class arbitrarily doles out class features at set levels, and every class has a sub-class system. I say this is a reasonable compromise: to maintain some form of class balance without laying down a power system, classes choices need to be more constrained. I think this is more than reasonable, since I have so many other ways to customize my character (backgrounds, feats, free multiclassing, etc...).<br /><br />Another critique of your regard the flavor of the bard class, with its silly bardic inspiration and unsubtle magic. To this I answer you that fluff is mutable. I don't mind having an RPG system come pre-flavored with generic fantasy stock because I realize this bland flavor is there for the benefit of new players. Since I am introducing new players to D&D, it's good to have the book come pre-stocked with generic tropes that they can use to participate in the game without too much hassle. <br /><br />For instance, I have little problem reinterpreting bardic inspiration: it can be a form of pagan blessing (think of it as a minor wiccan prayer), akin to the cleric's divine blessing but whose origin is some supernatural being (let's say, a very powerful Fae). Or it could be a personification of the "rule of cool": bards can bend reality and make a success out of a failure out of sheer coolness, anime-style. These reinterpretations don't need to be written in the book, and in fact it's BETTER that they're not in the book. I prefer the book to have well oiled mechanics over which I can cultivate my own fluff.<br /><br />Also, there's nothing stopping you redesigning the bard class for a game you're GMing. Balancing the class will take work, but house rules are one of the beauties of pencil and paper RPG. For instance, when I GM, I intend to make paladins and rangers "prestige classes" (I think it's absurd to have level 1 paladins and rangers running around). And I intend to reinstate full Vancian casting to the wizards, because no true wizard would ever shirk from over analyzing it's spell selection.<br /><br />To conclude, I am happy with 5e, and I am very happy that 5e bards are mechanically very strong. I can understand how you wish 5e could come with more organic mechanics, a more coherent magical system and less tacky fluff, but I'm honestly more worried about having a solid core, and so far it's delivering. I am sure there are other systems which you might like better (Ars Magica comes to mind, though I never seriously played it), or better yet, go ahead and create a d20 game. D&D is meant to be a "mainstream" system (or at least as mainstream as a pencil and paper RPG can be), so it needs compromises which can be a bother to more experienced roleplayers.Claudio Vallejosnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-91538099379983580272015-07-07T11:25:02.871-07:002015-07-07T11:25:02.871-07:00And you're a cowardly anon posting insults to ...And you're a cowardly anon posting insults to a blog post that's nearly a year old.<br /><br />Going to point out that you didn't address anything I said.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-54152957164250743952015-07-07T06:44:49.831-07:002015-07-07T06:44:49.831-07:00holy gods, do you really need all of your creative...holy gods, do you really need all of your creative potential to be offloaded and pre-made in the text? you are one arrogant and pessimist puddle of human. <br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-89368924854051658732015-05-23T13:11:06.048-07:002015-05-23T13:11:06.048-07:00@Anon: I also like it, but unlike so many 5E fans ...@Anon: I also like it, but unlike so many 5E fans I can at least recognize that it has problems (which I'm going to address once I start on my own d20 game).David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-47222893749219537852015-05-22T12:48:21.897-07:002015-05-22T12:48:21.897-07:00I like 4th edition... (im not the same anonymous a...I like 4th edition... (im not the same anonymous as earlier, I'm a different guy.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-18534149016136384032015-04-20T11:05:36.437-07:002015-04-20T11:05:36.437-07:00And while we're fielding questions, here's...And while we're fielding questions, here's a few more:<br /><br />How much of a dumbass do you feel like for re-purchasing a game that came out in 2000, and again in 2008?<br /><br />How many more times would you re-purchase said game?<br /><br />That last one's more for WotC than me: it would be good for them to know how long they can ride this train, before having to actually do that whole game design bit.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-61997885517160185492015-04-20T10:56:28.090-07:002015-04-20T10:56:28.090-07:00People liking stupid shit doesn't make it sudd...People liking stupid shit doesn't make it suddenly good, or do you consider the Twilight series to be exemplary writing?<br /><br />A better question: how big of a pussy to you feel like for posting this comment anonymously?David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-85567534297849071032015-04-19T05:02:45.651-07:002015-04-19T05:02:45.651-07:00So, almost a year later, with the bard being one o...So, almost a year later, with the bard being one of the most loved classes in PHB, and the 5th edition thriving to the point it just eclipsed the entire 4e in posts of interest online, worldwide, how big a failure do you feel for writing this article?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-89090430024347788742015-03-22T22:23:19.214-07:002015-03-22T22:23:19.214-07:00@Raven:
According to the PH, colleges are loose ...@Raven: <br /><br />According to the PH, colleges are loose associations. Even so, it makes no sense as a bard might never encounter another bard. It also does not address the needless locking in of later class features.<br /><br />"In short: if you start wearing heavy armor, wielding big-ass swords, and training with a fighter THEN YOU ARE BY DEFINITION A BARD OF VALOR. That is, actually, why the Bard of Valor gets a second attack at Level 6: because their training with a fighter led to them becoming good enough at fighting that they can get in a second attack."<br /><br />Incorrect. I can slap on heavy armor, carry a big-ass sword, and STILL choose College of Lore at 3rd-level.<br /><br />"Which is highlighted by the Bard of Lore being able to specialize in more skills while also learning more non-Bard spells than Bards of Valor. (The Lore Bard gets "Magical Secrets" at level 6, in place of the Valor Bard's second attack.)"<br /><br />I have no idea why you're bringing this up. <br /><br />"Which ties to "Bardic Inspiration" because Bards of Valor can allow allies to do more damage to enemies. 1d6 is the damage of a short sword; you've effectively had the fighter make a critical hit. At 5th level, this is a one-handed long sword. Inversely, a Bard of Lore can distract an enemy, using the 1dX from their inspiration to decrease the value of an enemy's attack roll."<br /><br />I'm also not sure why you're bringing this up. My criticism of Inspiration is as follows:<br /><br />It can only affect one person, no matter who hears it.<br />You can only use it x times per day.<br />At 5th-level you can use it as many times as you want, so long as you sit down long enough/not inspire people too often (regardless of who hears you).<br /><br />"As to these counting as "bonus actions" and such, note that D&D is consistent in talking being considered a "free action". And even if singing takes more time than normal talking, you could easily sing while attacking or moving."<br /><br />Riiight, I forgot about all the people that sing while fighting. Seriously, I can't think of a single example where someone sings while fighting.<br /><br />"I mean, when I get into street fights I'm frequently singing whatever song I'm listening to while I beat the other person to a bloody pulp for trying to steal from me."<br /><br />I don't believe any of this. I don't believe that you get into street fights with any regularity, sing while fighting, and/or beat someone to a bloody pulp while doing so.<br /><br />"Not to say that the Bard couldn't be a little more "unique"...but most of these complaints demonstrate little to no actual gameplay/use of the 5e bard."<br /><br />Nothing you've said here addresses anything I mentioned in the blog post. You've explained why a Valor bard would get physical stuff, and why a Lore bard would get more spells. I NEVER expressed confusion or criticized that those are things.<br /><br />My complaints stem from a needless lack of flexibility/organic character growth, and game narrative/fiction due to an equally needless adherence to antiquated grognard traditions.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-14044219688114717212015-03-22T18:09:40.219-07:002015-03-22T18:09:40.219-07:00You know, the "Bardic colleges" aren'...You know, the "Bardic colleges" aren't actual literal colleges. They are descriptions of two potential paths that the bard can take in furthering their abilities. The College of Lore, for example, demonstrates a Bard whose focus is in acquiring knowledge and harnessing their skills. The College of Valor, meanwhile, demonstrates a Bard that seeks the glory of battle.<br /><br />In short: if you start wearing heavy armor, wielding big-ass swords, and training with a fighter THEN YOU ARE BY DEFINITION A BARD OF VALOR. That is, actually, why the Bard of Valor gets a second attack at Level 6: because their training with a fighter led to them becoming good enough at fighting that they can get in a second attack.<br /><br />Which is highlighted by the Bard of Lore being able to specialize in more skills while also learning more non-Bard spells than Bards of Valor. (The Lore Bard gets "Magical Secrets" at level 6, in place of the Valor Bard's second attack.)<br /><br />Which ties to "Bardic Inspiration" because Bards of Valor can allow allies to do more damage to enemies. 1d6 is the damage of a short sword; you've effectively had the fighter make a critical hit. At 5th level, this is a one-handed long sword. Inversely, a Bard of Lore can distract an enemy, using the 1dX from their inspiration to decrease the value of an enemy's attack roll.<br /><br />As to these counting as "bonus actions" and such, note that D&D is consistent in talking being considered a "free action". And even if singing takes more time than normal talking, you could easily sing while attacking or moving. I mean, when I get into street fights I'm frequently singing whatever song I'm listening to while I beat the other person to a bloody pulp for trying to steal from me.<br /><br />Not to say that the Bard couldn't be a little more "unique"...but most of these complaints demonstrate little to no actual gameplay/use of the 5e bard.Ravennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-38084345271651353572014-11-26T15:20:24.554-08:002014-11-26T15:20:24.554-08:00@Anon: 4E bards can vary depending on how you wann...@Anon: 4E bards can vary depending on how you wanna go about it. They can be supporting, do their own thing, or just mess with enemies. Since 4E doesn't lock anything in, you can also shift your focus about throughout the course of play, but you never hamstring your character.<br /><br />There's also no pokemon-anything in 4E. You can learn way more than four abilities (which might be a problem of some), and even if you religiously adhere to the Charop forums there is rarely one "best power" for a given level, and even if there is there are normally a number of other perfectly valid alternatives.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-48430257199131096112014-11-26T04:30:48.409-08:002014-11-26T04:30:48.409-08:00P.S. distinction between characters of same class ...P.S. distinction between characters of same class i meant with "difference between class not character"<br /><br />P.P.S. sorry formy bad english, i am on smartphone and englsih is not my native.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-27873438239042053542014-11-26T04:24:49.475-08:002014-11-26T04:24:49.475-08:00I can understand the points people have made here,...I can understand the points people have made here, and id like to add couple of my own. 3e Bards tend to work as a supplement in large parties, where their inspires scale with the amount of party members. I would neverplay a bard in small group, nor recommend anyone else.5th edition i think they made bards supportiveish, but i think they also wanted him to fit in smaller gaming groups more, so thattheplayer wouldnt feel useless and want to switch characters. Bards in 4e i do not know much about, but when i pulled one 4e game, a powerplayer was willing to play one, so i guess that counts as something. I guess they are capable of independent stuff as well.<br /><br />Also the pokemon reference that the almost first anon adressed to is about the fact that in pokemon games, a pokemon learns tops of 4 sifferent moves from a certain set of moves depending on thepokemon itself. Maybe he was referencing that just like in pokegames, 4e falls into the same trap of picking only the best option, making distinction only between classes, not characters. This may be a bugging point for some people.<br /><br />Anyway, take this comment with what you want. I am not here to argue, defend anyone or take sides, i am just making things clearer for everyone. This is my first and last post here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com