Searching for the original bard

[Lunever]

Does anyone know, where I can find the class description of the original d&d 1st edition bard?

I don't mean ADVANCED 1st edition, that says "Even though this presentation is greatly modified from the original bard character class, it is offered as
supplemental to the system",
I mean unadvanced, simple, plain original d&d 1st edition.

[Rhynn]

Strategic Review #201, February 1976.

The classes in the OD&D books and supplements I-IV (well, IV has none) are Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief, Druid, Monk, Assassin, and Paladin.

Dragonsfoot thread on the subject. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1513)

[Lunever]

Many thanks for the information!

Can anyone provide a scan of the original article?

[Rhynn]

That probably violates copyrights. Digital versions apparently exist (included on some Dragon Magazine collection CD, see the linked thread), but that might be a hard search.

[ken-do-nim]

Strategic Review #201, February 1976.

The classes in the OD&D books and supplements I-IV (well, IV has none) are Fighting-Man, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief, Druid, Monk, Assassin, and Paladin.

Dragonsfoot thread on the subject. (http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1513)

Easier to find in Best of Dragon I, which is a must have for any OD&D campaign. BoD1 adds ranger, illusionist, and bard.

[Diarmuid]

Wasnt the original Bard a semi-PrC that required some amount of Fighter, Thief, and Wizard?



Bards in First Edition AD&D were a special class unavailable for character creation. A character could become a bard only after meeting specific and difficult requirements, achieving levels in multiple character classes, becoming a bard only later. The process of becoming a bard in the First Edition was very similar to what would later be standardized in D&D as the prestige class — in fact, the First Edition bard eventually became the Fochlucan Lyrist Prestige class in the Third Edition supplement Complete Adventurer.

To become a bard, a human or half-elf had to begin with very high ability scores: Strength 15+, Wisdom 15+, Dexterity 15+ and Charisma 15+, Intelligence 12+ and Constitution 10+. These daunting requirements made bards one of the rarest character classes. Bards began the game as fighters, and after achieving 5th level (but before reaching 8th level), they had to dual-class as a thief, and after reaching 5th level as a thief (but before reaching 9th level), they had to dual-class again to druid. Once becoming a druid, the character then progressed as a bard.

Bards gained a limited number of druid spells, and could be any alignment that was neutral on at least one axis. Because of the nature of dual-classing in AD&D, bards had the combined abilities of both fighters and thieves, in addition to their newly acquired lore, druidic spells, all level dependent druidic abilities, additional languages known, a special ability to know legendary information about magic items they may encounter, and a percentage chance to automatically charm any creature that hears the bard's magical music. Because bards must have first acquired levels as fighter and thief, they are more powerful at first level than any other class.


Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons))

[Skarn Hornfels]

Wasnt the original Bard a semi-PrC that required some amount of Fighter, Thief, and Wizard?



Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bard_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons))

Druid I thought, not Wizard, but yes. You dual-classed into each in succession, doing a specific number of levels in each, and then moved on.

Only humans could do it, and dual classing was different than multiclassing. Non-humans could multiclass, but not humans.

[Rhynn]

Wasnt the original Bard a semi-PrC that required some amount of Fighter, Thief, and Wizard?

Nope, that was the AD&D 1E bard. The original bard, for OD&D, is the one linked earlier in this thread.


Druid I thought, not Wizard, but yes. You dual-classed into each in succession, doing a specific number of levels in each, and then moved on.

Only humans could do it, and dual classing was different than multiclassing. Non-humans could multiclass, but not humans.

Yup. You had to start as a fighter, get to 5th level, and before 8th level dual-class into thief. Then, after 5th but before 9th level in thief, you had to dual-class into druid. Or maybe you become a bard at that point. It's really unclear in the PHB, because it doesn't say anything about switching to bard after that.

[Jay R]

Nope, that was the AD&D 1E bard. The original bard, for OD&D, is the one linked earlier in this thread.

Yup. You had to start as a fighter, get to 5th level, and before 8th level dual-class into thief. Then, after 5th but before 9th level in thief, you had to dual-class into druid. Or maybe you become a bard at that point. It's really unclear in the PHB, because it doesn't say anything about switching to bard after that.

That's still the AD&D Bard. The original Bard class was from The Strategic Review V2 #1, (and reprinted in The Best of The Dragon V1). You started out as a Bard. You gained a 10% Charm and Lore skill per level, and gained followers at levels 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20, each time you moved into a new College of Bards.

[SiuiS]

Yup. You had to start as a fighter, get to 5th level, and before 8th level dual-class into thief. Then, after 5th but before 9th level in thief, you had to dual-class into druid. Or maybe you become a bard at that point. It's really unclear in the PHB, because it doesn't say anything about switching to bard after that.

It's actually very clear, but very concise; When you take your first level of druid, you re now a bard, and get all the bardic class features. There is a note that says you are still a druid though, so you get all those too; Bard was the first class to give you all your old stuff and then some.

So a 5th level bard had all the abilities off of the druid and bard class lists, at 5th level. PLus whatever else they grabbed from their multitude of other levels.

Wanna play one sooo baaadddd...

[Rhynn]

That does seem like the best reading of the rules. No wonder the 1E bard was considered completely twinky! :smallbiggrin:

Also, it reminds me of the Wizardry CRPG series, where class-switching as you level up is standard (and even essential in VI, VII, & VIII)...

[Premier]

Does anyone know, where I can find the class description of the original d&d 1st edition bard?

***

I mean unadvanced, simple, plain original d&d 1st edition.

Not strictly germane to the matter at hand, but I'll put it down for future reference:

There is no such thing as "1st edition D&D". (Or "2nd edition D&D", for that matter.)

When WotC bought up TSR and later published 3E, they have made up some bull**** system according to which some of the numerous earlier editions were lumped into "1E" and others into "2E" - but as far as I know they've never actually bothered to explain how the system works or exactly which old edition goes into which category.

There's Original D&D from 1974, several versions of Classic D&D between '77 and '83 which then segue into the Mentzer (a.k.a. BECMI) series of books ('83-'85) and Rules Cyclopedia ('91). There are also the First and Second editions of Advanced D&D (which, as the OP notes, could in no sensible way be the same thing as "1st edition / 2nd edition D&D") from '77 and '89 onwards, respectively.

So, yeah. I wish people stopped buying into WotC's undefined "1E / 2E D&D" terminology because it's meaningless and totally fails to reflect the actual edition history of the game.

[SiuiS]

Not strictly germane to the matter at hand, but I'll put it down for future reference:

There is no such thing as "1st edition D&D". (Or "2nd edition D&D", for that matter.)

When WotC bought up TSR and later published 3E, they have made up some bull**** system according to which some of the numerous earlier editions were lumped into "1E" and others into "2E" - but as far as I know they've never actually bothered to explain how the system works or exactly which old edition goes into which category.

There's Original D&D from 1974, several versions of Classic D&D between '77 and '83 which then segue into the Mentzer (a.k.a. BECMI) series of books ('83-'85) and Rules Cyclopedia ('91). There are also the First and Second editions of Advanced D&D (which, as the OP notes, could in no sensible way be the same thing as "1st edition / 2nd edition D&D") from '77 and '89 onwards, respectively.

So, yeah. I wish people stopped buying into WotC's undefined "1E / 2E D&D" terminology because it's meaningless and totally fails to reflect the actual edition history of the game.

First Edition Dungeons and Dragons (such that it is) is the edition that ran concurrent with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1e. I don't know that anyone ever called it first edition, though; I only know htat people make a big deal about regular (and modular) or advanced (and static), because advanced was tournament standard, and while you could make up whatever you wanted for the standard, if you made any changes to advanced you should be purged from the world with fire.

[Lord Torath]

First Edition Dungeons and Dragons (such that it is) is the edition that ran concurrent with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1e. I don't know that anyone ever called it first edition, though; I only know htat people make a big deal about regular (and modular) or advanced (and static), because advanced was tournament standard, and while you could make up whatever you wanted for the standard, if you made any changes to advanced you should be purged from the world with fire.
So by 1st Edition D&D, you mean Basic/Expert D&D?

[Rhynn]

The terminology is really simple and unambiguous in my mind.


OD&D, Original D&D, 1974 (Vol 1: Men & Magic, Vol 2: Monsters & Treasure, Vol 3: Underworld and Wilderness Adventures and Supplements I-V)
Basic D&D, "Holmes Basic," 1977
AD&D 1E, Advanged Dungeons & Dragons, 1978
B/X, Basic/Expert, "Moldvay Basic," 1981 (Basic Set and Expert Set)
"Mentzer Basic," BECMI (Basic-Expert-Companion-Master-Immortal), 1983-1985, later summarized as the Rules Cyclopedia (1991)
AD&D 2E, 1989
D&D 3E, 2000


NB: Holmes Basic is very close to OD&D, Moldvay Basic (B/X) is close to Holmes Basic, and IMO Mentzer Basic is a birth further from both. They're not just reprintings of the same rules, but actual revisions. Holmes Basic, at least, was intended as a "re-editing" of the OD&D rules to make them more comprehensive and understandable. I'd probably group Holmes Basic and B/X together with OD&D (although they do have differences), like 3.0 and 3.5, and BECMI as a whole separate game.

There's also some boardgame versions, which I think are BECMI/Mentzer rules.

The only one I'd call "first edition" would be AD&D 1E (which a lot of fans seem to just call "AD&D," requiring 2E be specified). The only one that is "the first edition" is OD&D Vol 1-3.

[SiuiS]

So by 1st Edition D&D, you mean Basic/Expert D&D?

Personally, I never use first edition D&D. If it's just first edition, I'm referring to AD&D, with the orange spines on the books. Druing that post I sort of petered off because thinking baout it, I only have second hand info on what "first edition D&D" even is, or that it exists as a word choice.

[Jay R]

AD&D was in large part a legal fiction that TSR attempted to pull, claiming it was a different game from D&D, because they owed Dave Arneson royalties on D&D. That went to court, and they eventually lost.

"1E" never means anything other than "AD&D 1E". Original D&D is virtually always called OD&D, by the few of us left who still refer to it at all.