In reply to Eur512 (msg # 59):

I think that they tried to make them kinda both, and it's a bit of an awkward fit. The Pathfinder tried to do a little more along the Jack-of-all-Trades route, but the Factotum is really that class.

I like Bards, but mostly because of the mechanical role they fit into within a party (bugging, support, control, backup), not at all because of the Rockstar fluff.

It's funny how much gaming has changed over the years.  I don't think we ever even thought about character roles in a party prior to the advent of 3e.  It seems to really have become prevalent when MMORPGs hit stride with EQ and WoW.

The only thing that was considered essential was a Cleric simply because not having a Cleric meant that there would be an absurd amount of down time while adventuring (you took 5 damage?  Without a Cleric that took 5 days to heal with bed rest).

In reply to Shiv (msg # 61):

Oh, yes we did :D

My first gaming experiences were old 1st Edition D&D (not the boxed set.)

This was, what, 1987?  88?  And yeah, the very first campaign, we had a Fighter (yours truly), a Fighter-Wizard (or whatever the elven dual class deal was called), a Cleric, and a Thief.

I do recall some game systems where "roles" weren't an issue at all; White Run's Storyteller games, my TMNT and Other Strangeness games, but every fantasy game I have ever played has largely stuck to the necessity of the "well-rounded party."  Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, generally.

And to this day a party in D&D without a "dedicated healer" is generally fubar.

Again; your experiences may differ as every GM and player is different.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 61):

I have to agree with jtcbrown here.  Yes, there have been the 'famous four' so to speak long prior to main-stream MMOs.  Those Mainstream MMOs just highlighted it by emphasizing the names of those roles and making it more clearly understood.

And don't tell me you ever made it through the temple of elemental evil without a rogue and cleric.  Played as-written, I don't see four fighters or three fighters and a wizard surviving an hour. (thinking AD&D 2e here)

What modern MMOs have done is create concise terminology for it instead of just everyone 'knowing it' innately.

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 62):

You may have; we didn't.  We just adapted our tactics to whatever characters we were playing at the time.

Robilar made it through the Temple of Elemental Evil by himself and he wasn't a well balanced party.

How you play is more important than what you play.

For those old timers such as me, you may recall that Bards in the 1st edition (late 70s, early 80s) could not be created at initial character creation.  Instead, you had to reach at least 5th level as a fighter, then a dual class as a thief to at least 5th level.  Then the character would dual class again as a druid -- yes, a druid -- but would progress from there as a "bard" under druid tutelage.

Now--those were powerful bards!

2nd edition pretty much eviscerated their power and made them a support, lore, and charisma based character with a "jack of all trades, master of none" quality.  I never really met a 2nd edition bard that I found would be formidable.  It had two helpful purposes:

1) For players who really wanted that type of roleplaying experience, they could get it (and depending on the setting, it might be useful).  For example, a historical setting may have use for a bard more than a combat heavy fantasy setting.

2) The best use of a bard is as an NPC.  The PCs get support and boosts without having an NPC take away their glory in battle.

Unfortunately, the 2nd edition became the norm and image of the bard, and the 1st edition one was forgotten.

I have never played 3rd edition and on, so I can't comment on those, but it looks like they just tried to adjust from the 2nd edition, rather than start with a new model from scratch.

Nope.

Do I hate them? No. Do I think it should be a prestige class? Yes.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 64):

So anyone who failed to survive the original ToEE's "Death, No Save" traps - without prior knowledge of them - is a sub-par player, playing it wrong?  Got it.  ;)

Seriously; if you are having fun, you are playing it right.  This "how you play" stuff seems to imply (and you may not intend this but it is easy for the reader imply that you do) anyone that plays differently is wrong.

I wish my players and GM's had all been as awesome and great as yours such that we don't need the "usual four" for a D&D game.  But that is not the case, for most players, for most every version of D&D there has been.

Just like most tables find it difficult to have a campaign that doesn't focus on combat and loot.  Sure, you find the occasional group who truly role-play, and can manage characters of different levels or abilities without problems, who can handle player character death with no problem.  Most can't.  And it grates on me to see some players act like they are "better than" those players.

Whilst I agree that there have always been roles, in my experience what happened in 3e is that all of a sudden people were comparing classes to each other. In 2e, I never recall anyone complaining that the fighter was underpowered. Or that the thief was weak. Or that the wizard was by far the most powerful. Maybe different XP values made a difference, I don't know.

Though -now-, since 3e, people complain about the overpoweredness of earlier edition classes as well, so who knows.

I find compared to 3e, 2e bards were powerful. Being able to in theory learn any wizard spell helped.

Which is interesting, because in the 1st edition, they could not learn any wizard spells.  They learned only druid spells, but had already fairly mastered some fighter and thief abilities (to at least 5th level each).

2nd edition eternally changed this image of them as powerful druidic loremasters, making them weak wandering minstrels and entertainers--who somehow seem to get on everyone's nerves despite the high charisma...

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 68):

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm some sort of gaming snob.  I'm just sharing my opinions and my experiences.  Perhaps my writing comes off as adversarial?

I love role-playing in all its forms and I've said that there is no one way to play too.  I've been blessed with a really excellent long term crew (same basic line up going on 28 years now) and I've also been in dozens of other groups over the years (some great, some Gawd-awful) as well.  Is my experience more valid or valuable than someone who is just learning?  Nope not one bit.  The only difference is that I have many more stories and observations to share and I challenge you to find a post I've made in this thread where I somehow implied that my way is better or more
valuable than anyone else.



You're putting words in my mouth here.  I was responding to Gamerhandle who said that you can't survive the Temple without a Cleric and a Thief.  Robilar not only survived he conquered it (though the consequences proved costly for him if urban legend is accurate).  For my money that disproves that a well balanced group is the only way of doing things.  I'm not saying one way is better or worse just that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat and my crew generally did things without the balance.

See, in 2ed. I went for the Blade kit for my bard...

I didn't find bards weak in 2e. I played one through the Temple of Elemental Evil; and did passably well. (Admittedly, the Complete Handbooks were allowed, and he had the loremaster kit). I also haven't seen a real strong anti-bard bias until 3rd; whether they were seen as more useful earlier, or it's just that an image became ingrained that everyone had to be equally able to contribute, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure it's really fair to talk about Robilar. We don't know whether the dungeon he went through was the same as the one that was published.

I agree that the Option book (Complete Handbook) makes a difference in 2nd edition, as does the level.  A high level bard (like a high level monk in 1st edition) can be formidable.  The problem is that then the bard tends to be really just a wizard with some special skills on the side--IMHO.

I agree; I'm just not sure that makes them bad. Out of the three editions I know bards for I find 1st the most flavorful and most fun to play, 2nd is more fun than third; and third is just frustrating - in that they're not good enough casters to be like 2nd edition ones, and they really can't compete as a face compared to a rogue. They really are quite weak, and this was the edition where weakness of classes started really being highlighted.

Why isn't it fair to bring up Robilar?  Gamerhandle said he couldn't imagine it being done.  I just pointed out that it could and has been done by some one famous.  Was that Temple the exact same as the one Robilar delved into?  Probably not exact, but knowing Gygax you can be pretty darn sure it was at least as tough if not tougher than the published version.

Because Gygax was also superb at tailoring the adventure to the players he had; and the players he had were also superb (at least supposedly so) at garnering every last drop of advantage.

Just the nature of text communication, Shiv.

Was more trying to make a point than specifically accusing you of anything; every rule has an exception, but the rule remains nonetheless.

In reply to willvr (msg # 77):

OK, but that doesn't invalidate my statement.  An essential DMing tool is to tailor make a campaign that is both challenging and enjoyable for their players isn't it?

I think we've drifted pretty darn far away from hating on Bards at this point.

And there was much rejoicing.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 79):

Except, that you were using it as an example for how a published module didn't need the four roles. Within a published module; barring exceptionally gifted players in that regard, you'll need them. Barring an exceptional GM, you'll need them for homebrews too.

But, ideally you're right. I just don't think many GMs (myself amongst them) can cope very well without certain roles. Some are more easily covered than others though.

And that depends on game system and setting, as well.

I can do a Fantasy HERO game, or pretty much any non-fantasy game, without the "usual four" roles.

As to the drift; all conversations do this (and it is fascinating, really) and yet all of this touches on the subject.  If bards are not "ideal" or "best in class" they can and do certainly shift the balance of the party.  If you have four players, and are in a situation where you need those usual roles filled, a bard...  probably doesn't match up to the needs of the group.  Like them or not.  With five players, the bard makes a great 5th, so long as the other roles are filled.

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 82):

True. I was purely speaking about DnD; though in all it's incarnations. Any skill-based game I can do without four roles a lot easier; though any game where combat is an important part probably needs some way of healing.

Well, in pretty much any system, you're going to need to have certain roles covered. The nature of those roles changes depending on the system and setting. In Shadowrun, it would be Magic, Muscle, Matrix, and Manipulation. In D&D, it is Tank, Healing, Skillmonkey, and Magic. A Bard fits nicely in the skillmonkey section, with a side of support magic. They're an excellent support class. Light on direct damage and other such things, but there is a definite niche for people who want to be in a support role.