Knights & Knaves Alehouse

Falconer wrote:I think it would be awesome to have an all-Bard campaign where they were like Tenacious D with an attitude of “We'll fucking kick your ass, dude… with our rock.”

Thats definitely an ALL-BARD FANTASY unfortunately the ALL-BARD REALITY would be more like who can "trill" the DM out of the room...



Although my ideal ALL-BARD FANTASY would probably sound like the Mitch Miller singers... Now THAT would be some scary shit to hear from a column formation!

Falconer wrote:I think it would be awesome to have an all-Bard campaign where they were like Tenacious D with an attitude of “We'll fucking kick your ass, dude… with our rock.”

Fun. I think I'd go more Metalocalypse than Tenacious-D, though.
Not that I don't like The D, they are fun.
Have you seen the Brutal Legend video game?

My bard PC doesn't do a lot of in-dungeon singing and playing. It's more of a role playing ability that comes up in 'town' more often than not. I could see a big morale-boosting hootenanny prior to engaging in some anticipated battle, but not a spontaneous jam after opening a door in the dungeon.

Can't seem to get my head round bards, thee is nothing they can do that isn't done better by something else.

I had a house ruled Bard character, who used to sing a lot... But that particular house rule was that he would always turn humanoids with his song, like the cleric turn undead... My party would use earplugs of course...

Bard wrote:I had a house ruled Bard character, who used to sing a lot... But that particular house rule was that he would always turn humanoids with his song, like the cleric turn undead... My party would use earplugs of course...

ROFL!

That's great

Based on my (8th level) bard PC, I couldn't see the abilities capping becoming an issue until around 15th level.
At the current level range he's a total bad ass. He fights as good as a fighter, with a lot more HPs but with slightly inferior AC. Because he can't use a shield, he fights with two weapons. Also he has a dancing sword that he will let dance when the opportunity presents itself and draw another sword. He doesn't have the spell selection of a similar level druid, but his caster level is still 8th, plus he has all of the other abilities of an 8th level druid, and he doesn't have to fight to level. He's got 8th level thief abilities. Plus a few cool bard abilities; the legend/lore, identify abilities being the most useful. With the default abilities and restrictions I could see him start to become a lesser contributor around 15th level, but by then who knows what magical augmentations he might have come across.

8th level's exactly at the top of the curve for bardic power, though.

As a player I'm partial to humans and dwarves as races and to fighters, rangers, and clerics for classes. Although I've got a gnome illusionist/thief that has had all of one session of play so far. Just wanted to give it a try. Illusionists as a class are entirely dependent on how your DM is going to rule illusions, of course.

As a DM I like to design adventures that reward a mixed party. I'll work in tiny tunnels that are really only accessible by gnomes and halflings, for example. I like the flavor of a bunch of different races and classes so I attempt to make that play out well. Sometimes it even works.

- Jeff

jallison86 wrote: As a DM I like to design adventures that reward a mixed party. I'll work in tiny tunnels that are really only accessible by gnomes and halflings, for example. I like the flavor of a bunch of different races and classes so I attempt to make that play out well. Sometimes it even works.

I also find myself designing dungeons with all the party in mind, looking at encounters with an eye towards how different classes and races might perform in them. Often, if I see that one type of character's qualities aren't being exploited enough I'll throw out something catered more towards them (giving thieves things to pick, climb, listen to, etc.; providing more undead and religion-focused situations for clerics; the aforementioned small spaces for demi-humans and familiars to squeeze through; and so on). Ideally, encounters in my dungeons can be handled by a number of different types of characters' traits, or may not require specific traits at all. These later types of encounters - where the character's skill set isn't nearly as important as the player's ability to identify and resolve challenges - are by far my favorite.

- Wheggi

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:8th level's exactly at the top of the curve for bardic power, though.

Yeah, I know, but he's never going to be 'weak'. He's always going to have a ton of hit points. He'll still hit better than a cleric until the cleric reaches 13th level. He'll hit better than a thief until the thief reaches 17th level, and those figures could be better if the bard is specialized (mine is, but I know not everybody uses it). Plus he'll get the extra attacks for fighting at 7th level. He'll never get 6th and 7th level druid spells, but he'll cast the spells he does get at his bard level and have all of the other druid class abilities. Plus his bad abilities, plus whatever magical augmentations he'll have due to effects/items he's picked up.

Well, I think once the party's at 9th level and higher, the (5th level) spells become game-changing, and that level and higher belongs to the clerics, druids and mages.

I'm OK with gnomes (like anybody asked), and all other forms of demi-human. Even half-orcs.

Class wise, I pretty much don't like the Monk (too many fiddly bits for me, the DM, to sort out - "Okay...you're grappling...let's sort this out. Rest of you guys, if you wanna grab a drink have a smoke break, whatever...")

I'm equally OK with bards. One, it takes a lot in the stats department to become one. Two, there's finding bards who will even train you to level in the first place. Those two are huge hurdles.

I really, really like Paladins. When they're properly played, that is. I'll warn (ONCE) a player running a Paladin that the whole "Oh I'm going to go check out these carvings or guard further up the corridor while the party questions that goblin." thing doesn't wash. A player running a Paladin who willingly leaves a creature to be tortured or wantonly murdered by the rest of the party suddenly finds himself in possession of a some-combination-of-neutral fighter. Likewise the allegedly LG cleric (or anyone else LG for that matter).

I had one player play an assassin once in the second G1/2/3 campaign I ran, but he decided he'd rather be a CN thief, so we arranged a little role-play wherein he confessed his sins to a cleric, lost a level for the alignment shift, etc. Ultimately it was because we found it difficult to fit in a schedule of assassinations around adventuring, plus the chance that he'd be forced to take a contract against the party (whom he had begun to view as more than gullible meat-shields).

Bards don't need trainers, I believe.

thedungeondelver wrote:I really, really like Paladins. When they're properly played, that is. I'll warn (ONCE) a player running a Paladin that the whole "Oh I'm going to go check out these carvings or guard further up the corridor while the party questions that goblin." thing doesn't wash. A player running a Paladin who willingly leaves a creature to be tortured or wantonly murdered by the rest of the party suddenly finds himself in possession of a some-combination-of-neutral fighter. Likewise the allegedly LG cleric (or anyone else LG for that matter).

This approach to paladins and clerics I have never understood. Leaving a human to be tortured? Sure.

But a humanoid? No. They are an evil form of vermin that must be eliminated from the face of the earth by any means necessary.