As an actor myself, I can say that I fence (1 * in Sword proficiency), play the piano (Perform: Music), practice Russian stage movement exercises (Athletics), read constantly (Lore), and act as the Face for a group of friends (Charisma) . It's not so much one job as it is many. Much like a Bard.
My only real issue is that while Demi-humans can technically be bards, they can't be bards in the traditional sense (excluding elves who are the same as half-elves in terms of what they can do as a bard, but their choice of kits is more limited then the Half-elves).
Gnomes are still bound by all the same restrictions as an Illusionist specialist when using ANY arcane magic class because of racial inclination.
And Halfling/Dwarf bards can't use arcane magic at all as a quirk of their innate resistance to spells. They instead can attempt a special magic resistance check (they treat their chance to learn spell chance as magic resistance but is a separate check above normal magic resistance or saves in priority, but it only affects spells that they've "learned").
Ideally, they should just add the Chanter, Whistler, and Professor, and keep the current bards as is. Those kits are racial specific and already include bonuses to offset the lack of spells (or built in spell restrictions in the case of the Professor) and would allow them to get around having to modify existing stuff.
That said though...if they just applied a racial penalty that gave all gnomes the same opposed school restrictions that illusionists have (which they're supposed to have ANYWAY), they could just let gnomes be jesters and not worry about a gnome specific kit. (Basically the only difference would be that the Gnome jester couldn't learn whatever spells an illusionist couldn't or use mage-items an illusionist couldn't, based on what opposed schools the IWDEE Illusionists have).
And the Elven Ministrel is pretty much identical to a normal bard (it's only real difference would have no benefit in the game), so they might as well just let elves be bards.
Most actors aren't adventurers, so they wouldn't have an adventuring class. I would expect most actors who did become adventurers to have some levels of Bard.
Unfortunately, the BG2EE engine doesn't allow for duel classed bards.
I don't think this necessarily follows. An actor is someone who acts on stage. A bard in the classic sense is someone who writes and creates the plays being acted. Sure, he might perform AS WELL, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
I think in any Medievalesque environment such as the Forgotten realms (don't get bogged down with this simplistic analogy), there would be a limited number of ways to make a living. An Adventurer might have a sideline when he is not off spelunking forgotten tombs and fighting hoards of monsters, to 'Act'. This would in no way mean that he Wrote plays, nor even that he could read them very well. merely that he had a side job.
And just because you act, doesn't mean that you, perforce, have to be good at picking pockets and casting magic spells, nor that THAT was the driving force getting you into Adventuring. Again I use the example of the Strong man in a circus. He might be Lifting Bar Bells by day (certainly a performance art) and busting goblin skulls by night (as it were). Just sayin....
Lack of Gnomes in this thread... Everyone knows Gnomes make the best Bards... My aunt Agatha, Witchhazel, related to me on my mothers side, via a kidney and a wish and a prayer was just saying so the other day, to all and sundry. And everyone knows her word is as solid as a turnip dipped in concrete. Why... These are a few songs invented and sang by Gnomes that other races have stolen and adapted... Who can forget these classics...
Ten Green Turnips, sitting on the wall. The wheel and the cog, go round and round. Row, Row, Row you goat. Hey diddle piddle, the orc and the nipple. Haa, Haa, Halfling, can you not reach that shelf? No Sir, No Sir, gis a leg up... Twinkle Twinkle little Moon, Are you not an avatar of Selune?
I could continue but then again, why should I remind you of these classics...
So I challenge you @elminster and @bengoshi as to why the OP should not go with the Gnome, them being the best folk to be bards and stuff, cause aunt Agatha Witchhazel said so... And her word is turnip!
Heavy armour was hugely expensive. At the time that armour was actually used, no theatrical troup would have been able to afford to use it as a prop.
You could always come up with bizarre reasons why a character of any class has any sort of background. However, if an actor was to become an adventurer, and actually make use of skills they have acquired from their background, then they are going to be a bard. Under 3rd edition, you could pick up one level to represent background, then level in another class. You could even give them low charisma if you didn't think they should be able to cast spells.
The 2nd edition Bard is designed to represent an actor's ability to pretend to be another class. They can use most weapons and more commonly available armour through practising for stage fights. This also gives them better thac0 and more hp than someone completely untrained (mage). They are, of course, not as good as someone who spends all their time training with weapons and armour. The Blade kit represents your stage fighting specialist. In 2nd edition Bards have no inherent ability to use magic (I prefer that to 3rd edition). By "acting the role" of a wizard they may be able to learn to cast spells learned from scrolls - but only if they are intelligent enough. In IWD the shortage of scrolls may mean an unintelligent Bard can't cast any spells at all.
The Celtic mythology aspect of Bards, where they could cast druid spells, was first edition AD&D ONLY. By second edition it had been done away with, the only relic being the silly alignment restrictions.
Under 3rd Edition, I'd probably just put points into Perform (Acting) and play whatever class I want. My Pathfinder Barbarian who knows how to tell a good story didn't take a random Bard level, but instead put points into Perform (oratory).
Most actors aren't adventurers, so they wouldn't have an adventuring class. I would expect most actors who did become adventurers to have some levels of Bard.
Unfortunately, the BG2EE engine doesn't allow for duel classed bards.
I don't think this necessarily follows. An actor is someone who acts on stage. A bard in the classic sense is someone who writes and creates the plays being acted. Sure, he might perform AS WELL, but it doesn't necessarily follow.
I think in any Medievalesque environment such as the Forgotten realms (don't get bogged down with this simplistic analogy), there would be a limited number of ways to make a living. An Adventurer might have a sideline when he is not off spelunking forgotten tombs and fighting hoards of monsters, to 'Act'. This would in no way mean that he Wrote plays, nor even that he could read them very well. merely that he had a side job.
And just because you act, doesn't mean that you, perforce, have to be good at picking pockets and casting magic spells, nor that THAT was the driving force getting you into Adventuring. Again I use the example of the Strong man in a circus. He might be Lifting Bar Bells by day (certainly a performance art) and busting goblin skulls by night (as it were). Just sayin....
A bard is not "someone who writes plays". You are getting confused because that is a title that is applied to Shakespeare. But that has it's roots in druidism (which was largely a victorian invention), and didn't previously have anything to do with writing (indead, the celtic bards, if they ever existed, would have been illiterate).
The DnD bard, from 2nd edition onwards, was based on the medieval travelling player. They would have had to be able to tell stories, perform music AND act in plays. There wasn't enough money in the entertainment industry in those days for people to specialise. Many where also employed as spies.
A bard is not "someone who writes plays". You are getting confused because that is a title that is applied to Shakespeare. But that has it's roots in druidism (which was largely a victorian invention), and didn't previously have anything to do with writing (indead, the celtic bards, if they ever existed, would have been illiterate).
The DnD bard, from 2nd edition onwards, was based on the medieval travelling player. They would have had to be able to tell stories, perform music AND act in plays. There wasn't enough money in the entertainment industry in those days for people to specialise. Many where also employed as spies.
This is why we need a 1st Edition bard - the fighter/thief/druid triple-class! :-)
A bard is not "someone who writes plays". You are getting confused because that is a title that is applied to Shakespeare. But that has it's roots in druidism (which was largely a victorian invention), and didn't previously have anything to do with writing (indead, the celtic bards, if they ever existed, would have been illiterate).
The DnD bard, from 2nd edition onwards, was based on the medieval travelling player. They would have had to be able to tell stories, perform music AND act in plays. There wasn't enough money in the entertainment industry in those days for people to specialise. Many where also employed as spies.
Don't get bogged down in semantics. "Write" doesn't necessarily mean put pen to parchment. Homer was widely considered a Bard. A traveling minstrel is another term for Bard. Someone who CREATES the stories and music might be a better way of putting it. Sure some bards might share tunes and stories created by others, but by and large, they are creative types.
This is in no way to say every 'Actor' is a Bard. Far from it. See my example above. An actor is not 'Necessarily' someone who inspires and weaves magic (the way Bard skills are designed) but merely someone who performs. Weight lifters are Actors. Third string fiddle players are Actors, though not necessarily inspirational (though they may be). That is the difference that "I" see between a bard and an actor.
A bard may be an actor but an actor by no means needs to be a bard. And being an adventurer is something completely independent of BOTH.
"The word is a Celtic loan word from Scottish Gaelic bàrd, Irish bard, Welsh bardd. In Scotland in the 16th century it was a derogatory term for an itinerant musician, but was later romanticised by Sir Walter Scott." -OED
Up until the 19th century, there was no destinction between a muscian and an actor.
Using the word to describe a great poet is also modern, and has nothing whatsoever to do with either the original meaning or it's meaning in D&D.
Actors may be weight lifters, and vice versa, but one needs to do more than lift weights in order to act. One must do many things, similar to a Bard. I maintain that all actors are Bards.
Stripping things down to the pure mechanics, I don't see anything that the bard class has that would be required for acting. You might be able to stretch bardic music into relevance via oratory and musicals, but it's simply not true that everyone who can sing or speak well is a bard, and it's definitely not true that you need to sing well or be good at inspirational speaking to be an excellent actor.
Ok, let's make this perfectly clear. The definition of a Bard class in 2E D&D was inspired by present day perceptions of someone who sings inspirational songs, uses thieving skills and has the ability to cast magic spells. Such current definitions would apply to such historical figures as Shakespeare ("The Bard") and Homer (who may or may not have existed or might have been multiple people).
I see absolutely no reason to use THAT definition to define every single person who has strutted across the stage. I see no reason why a circus strong man MUST be a spell casting cut purse merely to be involved in a circus performance. I see no reason why an Illusionist of stage (and screen...it s a joke) need be a thief and a singer in order to perform for the masses.
Historical definition of what a 'Bard' was during celtic times means nothing other than that was the original use. D&D was developed based on contemporary understanding of the terms, not historical ones.
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer The Slings and Arrows of outrageous codswallop, Or to take Arms against a Sea of naysayers, And by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep— it is merely a name... Of a rogue that uses charisma over dexterity...
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer The Slings and Arrows of outrageous codswallop, Or to take Arms against a Sea of naysayers, And by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep— it is merely a name... Of a rogue that uses charisma over dexterity... -Abraham Lincoln
Actors may be weight lifters, and vice versa, but one needs to do more than lift weights in order to act. One must do many things, similar to a Bard. I maintain that all actors are Bards.
In 3.x, Rogue is probably even better, having heaps of skill points and class skills. Bards certainly could be an actor, Master of Masks is a pretty nifty actor-type bard PrC. Non-adventurer professional actors would almost default to Expert. I would expect the best actors to be Rogues or Bards though.
Whether 'tis Noober in Nahkel to suffer The Stones and Arrows of outrageous "heya"-lop, Or to take Amn against a crowd of Neebers, And by opposing, end them? To talk, to stay— it is merely a name... Of a guy that uses every second for "heya"-lop.
The worst thing a bard can do is to become as bothersome as a crowd of Neebers.
@the_spyder , "Third string fiddle players"? Is that a viola joke? Hmmph. We violists are *not* "third string fiddle players", I'll have you know. (kidding)
@jackjack you should actually look up the Master of Masks predtige class. Its late 3.5, from Complete Scoundrel, and is an actor that very much becomes the role he plays. Its versatility is incredible, and its pretty nifty as a character concept. Its like the Mystic Theurge, but for every base class. Its not really overpowered, but its very solid as a party member, being able to fill in nearly any slot the party needs.
@the_spyder , "Third string fiddle players"? Is that a viola joke? Hmmph. We violists are *not* "third string fiddle players", I'll have you know. (kidding)
I thought people would hang me for associating Shakespeare and "uses thieving skills", but hey...
@the_spyder , "Third string fiddle players"? Is that a viola joke? Hmmph. We violists are *not* "third string fiddle players", I'll have you know. (kidding)
I thought people would hang me for associating Shakespeare and "uses thieving skills", but hey...
One of my favorite teachers, Shapiro, would at times have us steal from the cafeteria, saying, "As actors, you need to learn how to steal food."
I'm wondering if culture is colouring perception here? Specifically, I'm suspecting that the use of "bard" to refer to a great poet is more prevalent in the USA.
Given that Gygax and Mentzer and the rest were American, and that Wizards is a US based company, you might have something there.
Never the less, the skill set as designated by the game (i.e. thieving skills and magic use) do not appear to be requirements for 'Acting'. Merely a generalization for a class type here designated as 'Bard', and more suited to someone who is creative and inspirational and more likely to write plays than 'necessarily' appear in them.
I'm wondering if culture is colouring perception here? Specifically, I'm suspecting that the use of "bard" to refer to a great poet is more prevalent in the USA.
Yep. Although we now know Shakespeare as the great Bard, before commercialisation, the town of Stratford-on-Avon was simply the birthplace of the great writer Shakespeare.
Bard's in my mind were simply people employed by knights to sing their tales of daring do (to be fair, Shakespeare's famous love sonnets were written for a lord... He needed the money...)
Bards accompanied the knights and fought by their sides, because if your knight was captured and ransomed, you can bet his retainers were not treated in the same manner. Death or slavery being the most common.
Note that this is in my mind. Bard is now a loaded word. It means different things to different people. Still persist, at it's most simplest level, a Bard is a rogue that uses charisma over dexterity to succeed.
Comments
Through steel and sword shall our enemies fall
though if not for great Luthic, so might we all
Though brave - our foes face - the end of their lives
though if not for you warriors, so might our wives
Through strength, brawn, and well timed strikes
Our enemies will die by our barricade spikes.
With Gruumsh at our side they will bellow and die
no elf shall stand, their end is nigh
Our enemies charge, cavalry full
Close our gates now, pull, pull pull
They'll not get us that way, though they have tried
If not for you warriors, we might have all died.
Grab your axes and shields, withstand the goads
Our efforts have left them defenseless and slowed
With Gruumsh at our side they will soon bellow and die
no human shall stand, their end is nigh.
They come for us all, their tunnels dark
Tiny and bearded, with more bite than bark
Mithral armor and chain shall protect them from cuts
If not for our sword arms, we couldn't spill their guts
Swords in hand - let them come- make them squeal and shriek
Against an orc army their outlook is bleak.
With Gruumsh at our side they will bellow and die,
no dwarf shall still stand, their end is nigh.
Just imagine the auditions. And now, Grognar the barbarian with his rendition of Oops, I Did It Again
Gnomes are still bound by all the same restrictions as an Illusionist specialist when using ANY arcane magic class because of racial inclination.
And Halfling/Dwarf bards can't use arcane magic at all as a quirk of their innate resistance to spells. They instead can attempt a special magic resistance check (they treat their chance to learn spell chance as magic resistance but is a separate check above normal magic resistance or saves in priority, but it only affects spells that they've "learned").
Ideally, they should just add the Chanter, Whistler, and Professor, and keep the current bards as is. Those kits are racial specific and already include bonuses to offset the lack of spells (or built in spell restrictions in the case of the Professor) and would allow them to get around having to modify existing stuff.
That said though...if they just applied a racial penalty that gave all gnomes the same opposed school restrictions that illusionists have (which they're supposed to have ANYWAY), they could just let gnomes be jesters and not worry about a gnome specific kit. (Basically the only difference would be that the Gnome jester couldn't learn whatever spells an illusionist couldn't or use mage-items an illusionist couldn't, based on what opposed schools the IWDEE Illusionists have).
And the Elven Ministrel is pretty much identical to a normal bard (it's only real difference would have no benefit in the game), so they might as well just let elves be bards.
I think in any Medievalesque environment such as the Forgotten realms (don't get bogged down with this simplistic analogy), there would be a limited number of ways to make a living. An Adventurer might have a sideline when he is not off spelunking forgotten tombs and fighting hoards of monsters, to 'Act'. This would in no way mean that he Wrote plays, nor even that he could read them very well. merely that he had a side job.
And just because you act, doesn't mean that you, perforce, have to be good at picking pockets and casting magic spells, nor that THAT was the driving force getting you into Adventuring. Again I use the example of the Strong man in a circus. He might be Lifting Bar Bells by day (certainly a performance art) and busting goblin skulls by night (as it were). Just sayin....
Why... These are a few songs invented and sang by Gnomes that other races have stolen and adapted...
Who can forget these classics...
Ten Green Turnips, sitting on the wall.
The wheel and the cog, go round and round.
Row, Row, Row you goat.
Hey diddle piddle, the orc and the nipple.
Haa, Haa, Halfling, can you not reach that shelf? No Sir, No Sir, gis a leg up...
Twinkle Twinkle little Moon, Are you not an avatar of Selune?
I could continue but then again, why should I remind you of these classics...
So I challenge you @elminster and @bengoshi as to why the OP should not go with the Gnome, them being the best folk to be bards and stuff, cause aunt Agatha Witchhazel said so... And her word is turnip!
The DnD bard, from 2nd edition onwards, was based on the medieval travelling player. They would have had to be able to tell stories, perform music AND act in plays. There wasn't enough money in the entertainment industry in those days for people to specialise. Many where also employed as spies.
But with the horrible adaption of the current bard and bard kits, it's actually pretty moot.
This is in no way to say every 'Actor' is a Bard. Far from it. See my example above. An actor is not 'Necessarily' someone who inspires and weaves magic (the way Bard skills are designed) but merely someone who performs. Weight lifters are Actors. Third string fiddle players are Actors, though not necessarily inspirational (though they may be). That is the difference that "I" see between a bard and an actor.
A bard may be an actor but an actor by no means needs to be a bard. And being an adventurer is something completely independent of BOTH.
-OED
Up until the 19th century, there was no destinction between a muscian and an actor.
Using the word to describe a great poet is also modern, and has nothing whatsoever to do with either the original meaning or it's meaning in D&D.
I see absolutely no reason to use THAT definition to define every single person who has strutted across the stage. I see no reason why a circus strong man MUST be a spell casting cut purse merely to be involved in a circus performance. I see no reason why an Illusionist of stage (and screen...it s a joke) need be a thief and a singer in order to perform for the masses.
Historical definition of what a 'Bard' was during celtic times means nothing other than that was the original use. D&D was developed based on contemporary understanding of the terms, not historical ones.
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous codswallop,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of naysayers,
And by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep— it is merely a name... Of a rogue that uses charisma over dexterity...
To bard. Or not to bard. That is the question...
Whether 'tis Noober in Nahkel to suffer
The Stones and Arrows of outrageous "heya"-lop,
Or to take Amn against a crowd of Neebers,
And by opposing, end them? To talk, to stay— it is merely a name... Of a guy that uses every second for "heya"-lop.
The worst thing a bard can do is to become as bothersome as a crowd of Neebers.
Aspiring Actress
Translation: Waitress.
Edit: The feminine was used because 'Waiter' could mean several ambiguous things. This in no way means that the definition is gender specific.
Never the less, the skill set as designated by the game (i.e. thieving skills and magic use) do not appear to be requirements for 'Acting'. Merely a generalization for a class type here designated as 'Bard', and more suited to someone who is creative and inspirational and more likely to write plays than 'necessarily' appear in them.
Bard's in my mind were simply people employed by knights to sing their tales of daring do (to be fair, Shakespeare's famous love sonnets were written for a lord... He needed the money...)
Bards accompanied the knights and fought by their sides, because if your knight was captured and ransomed, you can bet his retainers were not treated in the same manner. Death or slavery being the most common.
Note that this is in my mind. Bard is now a loaded word. It means different things to different people. Still persist, at it's most simplest level, a Bard is a rogue that uses charisma over dexterity to succeed.