WHY are so many bards such idiots?

[Avianmosquito]

Okay, in 3.5e the intelligence stat is responsible for skill points and bonus languages. Bards have a decent starting number of skill points, but they have a huge number of class skills (most of which are useful) and given that they are musicians speaking more languages is an EXTREMELY valuable vocational skill. So why in the world would a bard dump a stat that does so much for them? This stereotype makes no sense. It makes even less sense that it is generally true to the extent that I can't think of a single player other than myself that I've ever seen play a bard with an intelligence above 12.

[Eldariel]

Words of Creation has Int requirement of 15 too. That makes low Int seem like a capital poor idea.

[Wartex1]

Because the Bard already gets so many skill points and ways to enhance those skills, Intelligence doesn't really add much compared to other stats (CHA is spellcasting/face, WIS is Perception/Will, DEX is AC/Reflex, CON is HP/Fort), barring STR.

[IlPazzo]

Also, on a roleplay perspective, the bard suits well an unserious play style.

[Avianmosquito]

Because the Bard already gets so many skill points and ways to enhance those skills, Intelligence doesn't really add much compared to other stats (CHA is spellcasting/face, WIS is Perception/Will, DEX is AC/Reflex, CON is HP/Fort), barring STR.

Bards have 6 starting skill points and 25 class skills. Rogues, one of the few non-caster classes known to generally have high intelligence, have 8 starting skill points and 29 class skills. Bards can max only 24% of their class skills without investing in intelligence, rogues can gain 28%. The bard has more to gain from investing in intelligence than the rogue does, especially since several of a rogue's class skills are unlikely to be useful to them or their party. Therefore, the fact that most bards are played as total idiots and most rogues have intelligence as their second best stat makes no sense.

[Avianmosquito]

Also, on a roleplay perspective, the bard suits well an unserious play style.

Being serious and being smart are not the same thing. Also, the idea that musicians are unsuited to being serious or intelligent is just not backed up in the real world, so where the idea comes from that a bard should be a brain-damaged manchild I have no idea.

[Flickerdart]

Also, on a roleplay perspective, the bard suits well an unserious play style.

Indeed, the spoony bard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/QuirkyBard?from=Main.SpoonyBard) is sort of a fantasy staple. Even bards with high INT may be played dumb, as WIS is really the stat responsible for good decision-making.

[Eldariel]

Because the Bard already gets so many skill points and ways to enhance those skills, Intelligence doesn't really add much compared to other stats (CHA is spellcasting/face, WIS is Perception/Will, DEX is AC/Reflex, CON is HP/Fort), barring STR.

They are actually pretty short on skill points - though this goes for just about all of the classes in the game. It's hard for me to imagine any Bard without at least one Perform-skill, Use Magic Device and Concentration. That leaves them with just 3 open skills without bonuses, and they have access to the whole social list, caster list, knowledge list, and various rogue skills as well. There's a lot of stuff quite convenient for their shtick (Spellcraft, Knowledges, Tumble, Sleight of Hand, Bluff/Diplo/Intimidate/GatInfo, Hide/Move Silently, Spot/Listen, Sense Motive, Speak Language, Balance, even other Performs for different instrument bonuses/circumstances) so I definitely would want more, as much as possible really.

Also, +1 Int is going to amount to a greater bonus to all the Wis-skills than +1 Wis anyways - so far as those bonuses go, you should prefer Int. It's +1 to all Int skills and +1 skill per level. Admittedly this problem is lesser in Pathfinder but not by much.

[Geddy2112]

Bards have a lot of skill ranks, class skills, and bonuses to knowledge skills because of how they learn things, but their education is more through interaction(charisma) rather than study(intelligence). You don't have to be smart to know things, or to be learned. Gifted/genius children are probably going to go into some form of academic study and might end up more socially inept. That said, there are plenty of academic type bards that can have higher intelligence, and few bards are going to be stupid or illiterate. Being a bard does not require high intelligence, so you see a lot of bards who are not super intelligent.

Honestly, I see wisdom as more of a dump stat for bards than intelligence. Bards have strong will saves and the ranks to pump perception(or spot/listen) and it is a class skill. You call them idiots, but more often than not they are foolish. Taking reckless risks, not thinking things through, or simply not giving a flip about something. A highly intelligent and charismatic bard with wisdom as a dump stat is outright horrifying. A confident know it all that looks before they leap.

Also-music also does not need language, it is what cannot be said and what cannot remain silent. Even if the music has words, the voice and how those words are said are an instrument. You don't have to understand what is being said for the music to move you.

[Avianmosquito]

Indeed, the spoony bard (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/QuirkyBard?from=Main.SpoonyBard) is sort of a fantasy staple. Even bards with high INT may be played dumb, as WIS is really the stat responsible for good decision-making.

Which is further evidence that the wisdom stat, and indeed the concept of wisdom itself, is complete and utter nonsense because everything ascribed to it actually comes from intelligence, experience or some combination thereof. But I digress.

[Telonius]

They are actually pretty short on skill points - though this goes for just about all of the classes in the game. It's hard for me to imagine any Bard without at least one Perform-skill, Use Magic Device and Concentration. That leaves them with just 3 open skills without bonuses, and they have access to the whole social list, caster list, knowledge list, and various rogue skills as well. There's a lot of stuff quite convenient for their shtick (Spellcraft, Knowledges, Tumble, Sleight of Hand, Bluff/Diplo/Intimidate/GatInfo, Hide/Move Silently, Spot/Listen, Sense Motive, Speak Language, Balance, even other Performs for different instrument bonuses/circumstances) so I definitely would want more, as much as possible really.

Also, +1 Int is going to amount to a greater bonus to all the Wis-skills than +1 Wis anyways - so far as those bonuses go, you should prefer Int. It's +1 to all Int skills and +1 skill per level. Admittedly this problem is lesser in Pathfinder but not by much.

Melodic Casting will take care of most applications of Concentration, but the point still stands - even with 6+Int skill points, you're always wanting more.

[Avianmosquito]

Melodic Casting will take care of most applications of Concentration, but the point still stands - even with 6+Int skill points, you're always wanting more.

Which is why as a bard I always put my highest on charisma and second highest on intelligence before I even *consider* my other stats.


Bards have a lot of skill ranks, class skills, and bonuses to knowledge skills because of how they learn things, but their education is more through interaction(charisma) rather than study(intelligence). You don't have to be smart to know things, or to be learned. Gifted/genius children are probably going to go into some form of academic study and might end up more socially inept. That said, there are plenty of academic type bards that can have higher intelligence, and few bards are going to be stupid or illiterate. Being a bard does not require high intelligence, so you see a lot of bards who are not super intelligent.

Statistically speaking, musicians are actually much more educated than the general populace and this was especially true historically. Their increased education isn't always formal, but they are substantially more likely to be well read and knowledgeable and are nearly all literate even in countries where literacy is rare. Though having better education on average doesn't mean all of them are well educated, and being better educated than the general public isn't usually saying much, they should be better educated than most of the other classes.


Honestly, I see wisdom as more of a dump stat for bards than intelligence. Bards have strong will saves and the ranks to pump perception(or spot/listen) and it is a class skill. You call them idiots, but more often than not they are foolish. Taking reckless risks, not thinking things through, or simply not giving a flip about something. A highly intelligent and charismatic bard with wisdom as a dump stat is outright horrifying. A confident know it all that looks before they leap.

Except that a "confident know it all" is not actually intelligent, and being intelligent will make you less inclined to reckless actions. Wisdom is an utterly nonsensical stat, most of what it does is arbitrarily stolen from intelligence and the rest is experience, which last I checked was its own thing. Further, musicians are not any more inclined to reckless behaviour than anybody else, they just have their mistakes broadcast to the world. If anything, it's adventurers in general who are especially inclined to take stupid risks without enough thought.


Also-music also does not need language, it is what cannot be said and what cannot remain silent. Even if the music has words, the voice and how those words are said are an instrument. You don't have to understand what is being said for the music to move you.

Oh yes, sure, the lyrics are 100% irrelevant to music. And that's why so many artists put so much effort into their lyrics and so many fans make such a big deal about the song's lyrics and what the song is actually about. Nope, the words have no meaning and the vocals are just an instrument.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Bardic Knack + Inspiration means my skills are pretty much all maxed regardless of skill point investment :p But no, I try not to dump Int too much on any character. I blame useless-Bard stereotypes more than anything.

[Avianmosquito]

I blame useless-Bard stereotypes more than anything.

And that's a pretty dumb stereotype, bards are a good jack of all trades and buff the entire party.

[Grod_The_Giant]

And that's a pretty dumb stereotype, bards are a good jack of all trades and buff the entire party.
Oh, I entirely agree. I love Bards; the 3.5 version is one of my favorite classes. (The Pathfinder version breaks my heart; all the useful stuff is gone and you might as well just play a Sorcerer)

[Uncle Pine]

From my experience, Bards don't usually dump Int unless they're minotaurs or orcs (because of other stereotypes) and put the lowest mental score in Wis instead. The reasoning behind this probably goes as follows: to charm a lady you need to be cool (Cha) and be able to decently talk to her without using Hulk speech (Int>10). In this scenario, not recognizing preemptively that the damsel in distress is actually a camouflaged succubus due to low Wisdom, Will, Spot or a combination of them is seen as a bonus, because you get to make out with a succubus.

Tl;dr Bards are fools, not stupid.

[Geddy2112]

Statistically speaking, musicians are actually much more educated than the general populace and this was especially true historically. Their increased education isn't always formal, but they are substantially more likely to be well read and knowledgeable and are nearly all literate even in countries where literacy is rare. Though having better education on average doesn't mean all of them are well educated, and being better educated than the general public isn't usually saying much, they should be better educated than most of the other classes.
I agree. Better educated does not mean they are outright smarter, simply better educated. There are highly intelligent people who are uneducated, and highly educated people who are of average intelligence. The bardic knowledge mechanic class feature helps capture the "educated" aspect of a bard.

Also, not all bards are musicians.



Except that a "confident know it all" is not actually intelligent, and being intelligent will make you less inclined to reckless actions.
Generally yes, but not always. Reckless is a bad choice of word, foolish or lacking common sense is more what I meant.


Wisdom is an utterly nonsensical stat, most of what it does is arbitrarily stolen from intelligence and the rest is experience, which last I checked was its own thing. I strongly disagree. There are highly intelligent people with almost no common sense, and likewise, a lot of people who nobody would describe as smart with a boatload of common sense.


Further, musicians are not any more inclined to reckless behavior than anybody else, they just have their mistakes broadcast to the world. If anything, it's adventurers in general who are especially inclined to take stupid risks without enough thought. I agree that it is more an adventuring trait and part of the spoony bard trope as mentioned. Again, not all bards are musicians. Bad stereotyping and all.


Oh yes, sure, the lyrics are 100% irrelevant to music. And that's why so many artists put so much effort into their lyrics and so many fans make such a big deal about the song's lyrics and what the song is actually about. Nope, the words have no meaning and the vocals are just an instrument. Yeah this is not what I said at all. Lyrics matter, but not all music has lyrics or even vocals. For some music/bands/genres lyrics matter more than others.

[Avianmosquito]

I agree. Better educated does not mean they are outright smarter, simply better educated. There are highly intelligent people who are uneducated, and highly educated people who are of average intelligence. The bardic knowledge mechanic class feature helps capture the "educated" aspect of a bard.

Yes, but intelligence helps you in your education and allows you to get more from it. A stupid person may struggle through college and not remember most of what they were taught almost immediately after each test. A smart person, however, may breeze through schooling and remember most of what they were taught years later. The main hiccup to this is that rote learning is such a feature in most systems of education, adding in a lot of extra effort and sucking out all the engagement for absolutely zero benefit to anybody, and that shoots down a lot of smart people who are not engaged and unwilling to do the pointless extra crap that doesn't teach them anything. But let's not get into the broken education system right now.


Also, not all bards are musicians.

My point also stands with all other forms of artists.


Generally yes, but not always. Reckless is a bad choice of word, foolish or lacking common sense is more what I meant.

I strongly disagree. There are highly intelligent people with almost no common sense, and likewise, a lot of people who nobody would describe as smart with a boatload of common sense.

Common sense works like all knowledge in that it is Intelligence*Experience. You can be a moron and make up for it in experience, but not being a moron would allow you to get far more out of your experience and with an equal amount of experience an intelligent person will always be "wiser". Additionally, as I said, experience is its own thing. Wisdom makes no sense as a separate stat.

There are two things the wisdom score actually does that prevent it from being eliminated entirely. The problem is that NEITHER of them are related to the actual concept of wisdom, rather they are personality traits. These would be the will score and divine spellcasting. For that side of the wisdom score, "resolve" would be a better term, as being stubborn does not make you wise and neither does religion. Resolve, on the other hand, directly relates to both.

[Krazzman]

Oh yes, sure, the lyrics are 100% irrelevant to music. And that's why so many artists put so much effort into their lyrics and so many fans make such a big deal about the song's lyrics and what the song is actually about. Nope, the words have no meaning and the vocals are just an instrument.

Of course they are. Or why do you think so many people like songs like bubble butt or that anaconda song.
I have heard Italian death metal I really liked... they could sing about how their wine is used to pick up hookers and I wouldn't know it because I don't speak Italian.
Artas has a song in french I like despite not liking the language itself.
Many non German speaking people like rammstein. And I can't deny that they are awesome.
Then there are things like orchestra or classic. What about minimal or trance. Everything without lyrics is worse than if it had lyrics?
My wife dislikes bands for their voice, not the lyrics but their voice because sadly many female leads just wail like a banshee to some lyrics.
If lyrics were so important I seriously doubt that there would be this many genres without any.

Bards got 6 skill points even though they have the easy going flair. Their possibilities are this broad because they could have dabbled into numerous things. You don't need to max every skill on your list. Just a few important ones. The rest is done by versatile performance and bardic knowledge in pathfinder. 3.5 allows you to take feats to get extra skill points.

If your role is skill monkey then go ahead and push int. But in many other cases int stops being useful above 14 unless you have really high point buy or rolled nastily well.

[legomaster00156]

Why are so many barbarians naked? Why are so many sorcerers mad with power? Why are so many scientists unethical? It's an archetype, nothing more.

[prufock]

Okay, in 3.5e the intelligence stat is responsible for skill points and bonus languages. Bards have a decent starting number of skill points, but they have a huge number of class skills (most of which are useful) and given that they are musicians speaking more languages is an EXTREMELY valuable vocational skill. So why in the world would a bard dump a stat that does so much for them? This stereotype makes no sense. It makes even less sense that it is generally true to the extent that I can't think of a single player other than myself that I've ever seen play a bard with an intelligence above 12.
This is an example of sampling bias. You've seen a limited, non-representative sample of bards in play. That's not enough to make a generalization or stereotype. I've personally seen few bards with Intelligence scores below 12.

[Avianmosquito]

Why are so many barbarians naked? Why are so many sorcerers mad with power? Why are so many scientists unethical? It's an archetype, nothing more.

"This thing so NOT QUESTION!" -legomaster00156

[CharonsHelper]

Oh, I entirely agree. I love Bards; the 3.5 version is one of my favorite classes. (The Pathfinder version breaks my heart; all the useful stuff is gone and you might as well just play a Sorcerer)

What!? I love the Pathfinder bard! They finally shifted the song to a competence bonus so that it stacks with basic buffs, Bardic Knowledge is freakin' sweet, and Versatile Performance makes them king of the skill monkeys! And if you build for it, they can be a respectable melee/tanky build. (My PFS bard usually has the highest AC in the party with Fencing Grace, Celestial Chain, high Dex, and a shield.)

[Lord Raziere]

Because people lack creativity and don't realize that the Bard is basically a Rogue but better in every way.

The Bards Guild, should quite frankly beat any Thieves Guild quite handily at their own games and take over the criminal underground handily. Then pretty much be able to infiltrate and gain the ear of kings and lords alike and then pretty much rule entire nations from the shadows. The whole music thing is probably just a front for their real operations, and probably pulls double-duty as a way to influence the minds of the common people through their performances- they basically control the media and relay the news how they want and can spin it to their advantage.

The idiot Bards of course, are not in on the conspiracy. Why recruit them? They clearly would be liabilities. Thus the smart Bards get snatched up by the Bard Conspiracy.

[legomaster00156]

"This thing so NOT QUESTION!" -legomaster00156
I do not appreciate the attempt to troll me and discredit my answer simply because you didn't like it.

[Coidzor]

Mostly the sense of humor of people who can't take a musical character seriously.

And the tendency for people to think high Charisma means getting laid in the game a lot and the resultant lampooning of those people.

[Yogibear41]

Honestly, I see wisdom as more of a dump stat for bards than intelligence.


This, much better to have an 8 Wis on a Bard than an 8 in Int in my opinion.

[Dagroth]

Oh yes, sure, the lyrics are 100% irrelevant to music. And that's why so many artists put so much effort into their lyrics and so many fans make such a big deal about the song's lyrics and what the song is actually about. Nope, the words have no meaning and the vocals are just an instrument.

Actually, there are many songs that are popular in their native language. 99 Luft Balloons was highly popular in English-speaking countries before the English version was made. La Bamba... most songs by Santana. The main theme songs for the anime Ghost in the Shell have Russian lyrics, yet are wildly popular in Japan. Many people enjoy Italian & German operas without understanding a word of Italian or German. Plenty of people enjoy Celtic music without understanding a word of Gaelic.


Yes, but intelligence helps you in your education and allows you to get more from it. A stupid person may struggle through college and not remember most of what they were taught almost immediately after each test. A smart person, however, may breeze through schooling and remember most of what they were taught years later. The main hiccup to this is that rote learning is such a feature in most systems of education, adding in a lot of extra effort and sucking out all the engagement for absolutely zero benefit to anybody, and that shoots down a lot of smart people who are not engaged and unwilling to do the pointless extra crap that doesn't teach them anything. But let's not get into the broken education system right now.

Common sense works like all knowledge in that it is Intelligence*Experience. You can be a moron and make up for it in experience, but not being a moron would allow you to get far more out of your experience and with an equal amount of experience an intelligent person will always be "wiser". Additionally, as I said, experience is its own thing. Wisdom makes no sense as a separate stat.

Intelligence does not always provide common sense... even with experience.

Experience trumps education every time. I will always trust the computer tech who learned in the field for 4 years vs. the computer tech who went to ITT for 4 years.

Wisdom is the ability to turn experience into knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to turn learning into knowledge. Based on that idea, skill points after level 1 should be based on Wisdom, not Intelligence.

Of course, even some of the more intelligent (IQ-wise) people can sometimes be characterized by the phrase "he never learns, does he?"

[Avianmosquito]

I do not appreciate the attempt to troll me and discredit my answer simply because you didn't like it.

Your logic was circular. "It is because it is" is not worth a serious response.



Intelligence does not always provide common sense... even with experience.

Boy, I sure do sense a strong anti-intellectual sentiment from this.


Experience trumps education every time. I will always trust the computer tech who learned in the field for 4 years vs. the computer tech who went to ITT for 4 years.

And the moment they run into something they've never done before and can't work it out, you will regret this decision.


Wisdom is the ability to turn experience into knowledge. Intelligence is the ability to turn learning into knowledge. Based on that idea, skill points after level 1 should be based on Wisdom, not Intelligence.

Nonsense. The ability to learn from experience is kinesthetic learning, which is a form of intelligence. Learning from being told is auditory learning, which also falls under intelligence. Visual learning applies to both, also intelligence. Wisdom is nothing because the stat is nonsense.


Of course, even some of the more intelligent (IQ-wise) people can sometimes be characterized by the phrase "he never learns, does he?"

IQ is a meaningless system that has been thoroughly discredited and needs to be replaced. Opportunity, upbringing and quality of education swing IQ more than actual intelligence does, as does the condition of the subject and the test giver, and as does bias in both parties which is not accounted for.

I personally have has tests place me at 144 one day and 125 the next, then 105 from a different test giver and up to 138 from a fourth and 171 from a fifth. I didn't go from genius to smart to average to almost-genius to super-genius in one week. You could say to take the average, 137, or to eliminate the two outliers and take the average from the middle three, 136, but the reality is if the test had any basis there wouldn't be such a large fluctuation between three different test givers on five days. Further, most people only get tested twice by the same test giver, so they have an even smaller sample size than I did. This whole system is pointless, as is bragging about your IQ like it's your power level.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Your logic was circular. "It is because it is" is not worth a serious response.

Noting something is an archetype isn't circular reasoning, it's recognising reoccouring (and dare I say popular) traits in fiction. DnD being something based in fantasy fiction, it's unsurprising (or should be) that typical/popular archetypes are, well, popular.



Boy, I sure do sense a strong anti-intellectual sentiment from this.


There's a saying that goes 'rich in knowledge, poor in common sense'. Please refrain from being judgemental and hostile, simply because you disagree with someone.



Nonsense. The ability to learn from experience is kinesthetic learning, which is a form of intelligence. Learning from being told is auditory learning, which also falls under intelligence. Visual learning applies to both, also intelligence. Wisdom is nothing because the stat is nonsense.

History kind of disagrees with you. Literature, both fictional and historical, is full of mentions of people/characters being both smart and wise. The term wasn't just invented wholesale for the game, after all.

I've known architectural engineers who have done silly things and hurt themselves. I've known successful business management people who have dropped fences on themselves. I know an aircraft engineer who apparently thinks if you tell the same joke over and over again, after it stopped being funny the fifth time, that on the twentieth time, it'll be funny again.

Being smart doesn't mean you have common-sense at all.




IQ is a meaningless system that has been thoroughly discredited and needs to be replaced. Opportunity, upbringing and quality of education swing IQ more than actual intelligence does, as does the condition of the subject and the test giver, and as does bias in both parties which is not accounted for.

I personally have has tests place me at 144 one day and 125 the next, then 105 from a different test giver and up to 138 from a fourth and 171 from a fifth. I didn't go from genius to smart to average to almost-genius to super-genius in one week. You could say to take the average, 137, or to eliminate the two outliers and take the average from the middle three, 136, but the reality is if the test had any basis there wouldn't be such a large fluctuation between three different test givers on five days. Further, most people only get tested twice by the same test giver, so they have an even smaller sample size than I did. This whole system is pointless, as is bragging about your IQ like it's your power level.

Cool. That doesn't make the statement you're addressing wrong, just poorly worded.

If you used a little common-sense, you could read between the lines just fine.

[CartmanTuttle]

I myself have played a few bards, and I tried to play each of them differently, such as:
-My 5e Lore Bard/Fighter who was quite capable, but had an ego greater than that of an Anger Sniper (Kudos for those who get the reference, btw)
-My 2e Skald/5e Valor Bard who was more of a quiet, sit-in-the-back-and-watch-events-unfold type who helped the team plow through several encounters through his music and some occasional support spellcasting.

Although to be honest, I would love to play a 3.5 or Pathfinder Bard. I like their abilities more than other versions.

[Avianmosquito]

Noting something is an archetype isn't circular reasoning, it's recognising reoccouring (and dare I say popular) traits in fiction. DnD being something based in fantasy fiction, it's unsurprising (or should be) that typical/popular archetypes are, well, popular.

Except my question was, importantly, why this archetype exists and is followed. The question was "Why is this a thing?", and I got a response of "Because it's a thing.", you can play semantics all you want but it won't make that any less circular.

At this point, it's clear that the reason for its usage is entirely irrational. So this thread serves no more purpose, and I am going to stop reading it now.


There's a saying that goes 'rich in knowledge, poor in common sense'. Please refrain from being judgemental and hostile, simply because you disagree with someone.

Something being a saying doesn't make it true. It doesn't even support the idea that it might be true. 90% of what people believe is incorrect, because people work off of shoddy and unreliable information in all things and since most don't have the time or energy to try and determine what is and is not actually true they mostly just believe what they're told.


History kind of disagrees with you. Literature, both fictional and historical, is full of mentions of people/characters being both smart and wise. The term wasn't just invented wholesale for the game, after all.

History tells of a lot of idiotic things that don't exist. An excuse for old people to hold authority over young people that are smarter than them is just the sort of thing that humans would invent, and that's exactly what this is. Wisdom is a myth fabricated by the old to hold their authority in face of those with greater merit. They use this myth to claim to know better when they don't, and try to keep themselves relevant as their usefulness decreases. After all, it's a lot harder for them to stay in denial about their decline if you aren't in denial as well.

Never mind that past experience declines with time and better advice comes from those who did something recently than those who did it ages ago, and never mind that older people have worse memories to start with. Oh, and let's also just ignore the fact that things change and the experience of your elders is usually out of date and often no longer applicable. And while we're at it, age makes them poor learners and stubborn, so they are adjusting and learning new things less, so even if they're still active in the field in question they are worse sources of advice than their younger peers.

And so, this myth was fabricated. They may no longer know what they're talking about and they may be horribly unreliable, they may be declining mentally and senility may be creeping in around the edges, but they're "wise", so you better keep believing they're as right about everything as they do, accept their advice if they give it and submit to their authority if they demand it, despite their lack of any actual merit.


I've known architectural engineers who have done silly things and hurt themselves. I've known successful business management people who have dropped fences on themselves. I know an aircraft engineer who apparently thinks if you tell the same joke over and over again, after it stopped being funny the fifth time, that on the twentieth time, it'll be funny again.

Being smart doesn't mean you have common-sense at all.

Or perhaps these people knew better and did it anyway. That's most stupid mistakes right there, the person knew what they were doing was stupid and either didn't care or felt it was justified in the situation. Outside of that, don't forget that people are working off incomplete and unreliable information in everything they do, so something may have seemed like a good idea at the time and in hindsight when they have more complete information they may realise it was actually pretty stupid. There is no trait that changes that, unless you happen to be omniscient.



Cool. That doesn't make the statement you're addressing wrong, just poorly worded.

If you used a little common-sense, you could read between the lines just fine.

I understood him just fine, but he's basing that belief off of meaningless information that doesn't support it, so I chose to address that instead of just saying "You're wrong.". It seemed more productive.

[Tohsaka Rin]

Except my question was, importantly, why this archetype exists and is followed. The question was "Why is this a thing?", and I got a response of "Because it's a thing.", you can play semantics all you want but it won't make that any less circular.


What semantics? You asked a question. The answer was 'because people like fictional archetypes' (to slim down the wordyness of my last comment).


Something being a saying doesn't make it true. It doesn't even support the idea that it might be true. 90% of what people believe is incorrect, because people work off of shoddy and unreliable information in all things and since most don't have the time or energy to try and determine what is and is not actually true they mostly just believe what they're told.

Emphasis mine.

Your entire rant boils down to 'I don't like what everyone else has to say, because I disagree with it'. That fact became very clear when you claimed an arbitrarily-high percentage of what people believe is false. That is statistically impossible, literally.

The sky is blue. The sun rises in the east. 2+2=4. Most of what people believe are basic facts that aren't up to interpretation.

If you're not prepared to receive an answer that you don't like, maybe you shouldn't be asking the question. Just because you don't like an answer, doesn't make it any less true.

Or maybe I'm wrong. I'm sure the tax collection agency would love to hear more about your beliefs on truth.

But seriously, don't actually do that. Don't mess with tax people, they don't play around.

[Cisturn]

"I mean, being a bard is pretty silly. You walk into dungeons and SING at people. Who could take that seriously?" -Elan

I think a lot of players tend to think of Bards as non-serious characters. And unfortunately being silly can pretty easily conflated with being dumb. Even though Bard-mechanics may favor an Int heavy build. I think a lot of players find is difficult to get over the initial feeling that the class that brings a guitar or a tambourine into the dungeon is anything but kind of silly.

Personally though, I've always thought that the bard skill set make for wonderful spy/James Bond type characters.

[Dagroth]

Boy, I sure do sense a strong anti-intellectual sentiment from this.

Actually, I consider myself (and am considered by others) to be highly intellectual.


And the moment they run into something they've never done before and can't work it out, you will regret this decision.

The person who has been in the field is almost always more likely able to work things out than the person that has only been in the classroom. The person that has only been in the classroom it much more likely to run into a problem their education hasn't prepared them for. This is especially true in the case of Network Engineering.

It is a known fact (the teachers will tell you) that students are taught "to the test", not to what they might encounter in the "outside world".

The best software engineer I know never took a class. He learned (and still learns new programming languages) by studying other people's work and then trial-and-error programming on his own.


Nonsense. The ability to learn from experience is kinesthetic learning, which is a form of intelligence. Learning from being told is auditory learning, which also falls under intelligence. Visual learning applies to both, also intelligence. Wisdom is nothing because the stat is nonsense.

Kinesthetic learning is learning by doing physical actions, which does not cover all forms of experience.

Haven't you ever heard of the expression that you learn more by doing than you do by reading?

You are more likely to remember something is dangerous by doing it or seeing it done than you are by reading about it. That's experience.


IQ is a meaningless system that has been thoroughly discredited and needs to be replaced. Opportunity, upbringing and quality of education swing IQ more than actual intelligence does, as does the condition of the subject and the test giver, and as does bias in both parties which is not accounted for.

I personally have has tests place me at 144 one day and 125 the next, then 105 from a different test giver and up to 138 from a fourth and 171 from a fifth. I didn't go from genius to smart to average to almost-genius to super-genius in one week. You could say to take the average, 137, or to eliminate the two outliers and take the average from the middle three, 136, but the reality is if the test had any basis there wouldn't be such a large fluctuation between three different test givers on five days. Further, most people only get tested twice by the same test giver, so they have an even smaller sample size than I did. This whole system is pointless, as is bragging about your IQ like it's your power level.

Welcome to the world of Statistics.

Also, I'm happy to see you deriding something that is a measurement of classroom learning over real-world experience.

[Zaq]

Anecdotally, I've never seen or played a low-INT Bard. It's basically their second most important stat, after CHA. (Even if you prioritize a physical stat for some reason, INT is still critical.)

[Stealth Marmot]

Okay, in 3.5e the intelligence stat is responsible for skill points and bonus languages. Bards have a decent starting number of skill points, but they have a huge number of class skills (most of which are useful) and given that they are musicians speaking more languages is an EXTREMELY valuable vocational skill. So why in the world would a bard dump a stat that does so much for them? This stereotype makes no sense. It makes even less sense that it is generally true to the extent that I can't think of a single player other than myself that I've ever seen play a bard with an intelligence above 12.

My answer is simple: They aren't.

I haven't seen people use INT as a dump stat as a bard. When I made a bard mine had 16 int (she had pretty good rolls, but it was her second highest stat after Charisma, which was also 16 before racial adjustments for being an aasimar).

That said, bards have little use for Wisdom especially since they have a good will save anyway, so bards aren't likely to be idiots, but ARE potentially likely to be fools.

What makes you think bards are unintelligent? Elan? Elan does not represent all bards.

[Xethik]

What!? I love the Pathfinder bard! They finally shifted the song to a competence bonus so that it stacks with basic buffs, Bardic Knowledge is freakin' sweet, and Versatile Performance makes them king of the skill monkeys! And if you build for it, they can be a respectable melee/tanky build. (My PFS bard usually has the highest AC in the party with Fencing Grace, Celestial Chain, high Dex, and a shield.)

Not to go off the thread too much, but I agree. I'm playing a 3.5 Bard/Sublime Chord and while I love it, I would much prefer having the PF Bard as a base. Versatile Performance, Bardic Masterpieces, and the Finale spells are all really interesting to me.

The only thing that I like less is how Bardic Music usages are split up. But it's probably more balanced in PF, anyways.

[prufock]

IQ is a meaningless system that has been thoroughly discredited and needs to be replaced. Opportunity, upbringing and quality of education swing IQ more than actual intelligence does, as does the condition of the subject and the test giver, and as does bias in both parties which is not accounted for.
This is demonstrably false. Environmental factors definitely matter, but IQ also has a strong inherited component which gets stronger as you age (while the effect of environment decreases). IQ is correlated with such outcomes as grades, degrees, job status, income, and crime rates. You might argue that it isn't measuring intelligence, but it's definitely measuring something significantly like intelligence.


I personally have has tests place me at 144 one day and 125 the next, then 105 from a different test giver and up to 138 from a fourth and 171 from a fifth. I didn't go from genius to smart to average to almost-genius to super-genius in one week. You could say to take the average, 137, or to eliminate the two outliers and take the average from the middle three, 136, but the reality is if the test had any basis there wouldn't be such a large fluctuation between three different test givers on five days. Further, most people only get tested twice by the same test giver, so they have an even smaller sample size than I did. This whole system is pointless, as is bragging about your IQ like it's your power level.
Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. IQ tests have proven reliability, and many of the factors influencing scores (practice, for example) are known.

I'm unclear on what this has to do with Intelligence as a D&D mechanic, though.

[Calthropstu]

Being serious and being smart are not the same thing. Also, the idea that musicians are unsuited to being serious or intelligent is just not backed up in the real world, so where the idea comes from that a bard should be a brain-damaged manchild I have no idea.
Actually, most musicians are complete and utter morons. Even the supposedly smarter ones are generally complete tools.
Seriously, do you honestly expect something intelligent to come out of a musician's mouth?

[Stealth Marmot]

Actually, most musicians are complete and utter morons. Even the supposedly smarter ones are generally complete tools.
Seriously, do you honestly expect something intelligent to come out of a musician's mouth?

Someone wasn't invited to the parties in high school the cool kids in a band held.

[prufock]

Actually, most musicians are complete and utter morons. Even the supposedly smarter ones are generally complete tools.
Seriously, do you honestly expect something intelligent to come out of a musician's mouth?
Actually, trained musicians score higher than general population on intelligence tests. This doesn't necessarily apply to "self-taught" musicians.

[Telok]

Anecdotally, I've never seen or played a low-INT Bard. It's basically their second most important stat, after CHA. (Even if you prioritize a physical stat for some reason, INT is still critical.)

I've seen it. Mostly in point buy when the player wanted AC and HP at least equal to the wizard, or wanted to participate in combat without going through all the dozen or more feats, ACFs, magic items, and spells to replace the other stats with charisma.

The ones I've seen tend to fall into a category: caster, combat, or skills. Under the point buys I've seen people generally have to choose one and let the other two drop.

[KillianHawkeye]

Is this a thing? Is Bards having a low Intelligence stat a common stereotype? I've certainly never seen it, at least not outside of a certain stick figure webcomic....

[OldTrees1]

Except my question was, importantly, why this archetype exists and is followed. The question was "Why is this a thing?", and I got a response of "Because it's a thing.", you can play semantics all you want but it won't make that any less circular.

At this point, it's clear that the reason for its usage is entirely irrational. So this thread serves no more purpose, and I am going to stop reading it now.

You fooled me. I read your opening post and I thought it asked "My very limited sample size noticed a heavy bias towards dumb bards that I would not have predicted. Why are most bards dumb?"

1)Your sampled data seems anomalous in comparison to some other data samples people have provided in this thread.

2)"there is an dumb bard archetype and a large chunk of characters play to archetypes" is a valid linear reasoning response. It is saying there is a cultural memetic ideas and that a chunk of the character pool play towards our cultural memetic ideas (no implication of a reversed relationship).


So the answers you have been given are:
1)Bards do not tend to be disproportionately dumb
2)The culture of subcultures tends to reflect the culture of the general culture

While both answer are true, I think the former better explains your observations.

[mabriss lethe]

Why do some folks dump INT on bard builds?

-because the player decided that other ability scores were more important to their build.

-because the chassis is robust enough to still have playable configurations while dumping INT.

-because optimization doesn't always equal fun.

[Tohsaka Rin]

At this point, it's clear that the reason for its usage is entirely irrational. So this thread serves no more purpose, and I am going to stop reading it now.


Well everyone, your well thought out responses and reasonings seem to have gone to waste. Someone's already made up their mind.

[Uncle Pine]

Well everyone, your well thought out responses and reasonings seem to have gone to waste. Someone's already made up their mind.
Dread Sorcerer King is invincible at every level. The Sorcerer King trumps even dumb bards, not only wizards!

[Calthropstu]

Actually, trained musicians score higher than general population on intelligence tests. This doesn't necessarily apply to "self-taught" musicians.

Source?

And if that's the case, why do most popular musicians spout utter garbage? Actually, I should stop saying musicians and say singers. I have honestly cut all music with words in it out of my life as singers have nothing to say, and use a lot of words to prove it.

[ShurikVch]

From my experience, Bards don't usually dump Int unless they're minotaurs or orcs (because of other stereotypes)Or Mongrelfolk
In 2e, only a few races were able to take even a single level in Bard class, and one of them was Mongrelman
Penalties on both Int and Cha...

Because people lack creativity and don't realize that the Bard is basically a Rogue but better in every way.Note: in 2e, Bard was in the Rogue group

[Telonius]

Depends on how much they put into the training. Are they some kid who picked up a guitar, or have they had training in music theory and applied math for 12 years?

Anyway, here are a couple of items that came out a few years back that might be relevant. (Links are to .pdf files). From Brain and Cognition (http://parklab.vanderbilt.edu/Gibson_Folley_Park_2009.pdf), apparently they use a particular sort of thinking more than other people. And from Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology (https://www.psychologytoday.com/files/attachments/1035/arts-foster-scientific-success.pdf), a study of very high-end scientists and how many of them have interests in the arts generally; they break out music individually on the chart on page 6.

[Mordaedil]

Source?

And if that's the case, why do most popular musicians spout utter garbage? Actually, I should stop saying musicians and say singers. I have honestly cut all music with words in it out of my life as singers have nothing to say, and use a lot of words to prove it.

What did you just say about Weird Al Yankovich?

[prufock]

Source?

In kids: Journal of Educational Psychology (Vol. 98, No. 2)
In seniors: Neuropsychology, (Vol. 25, No. 3)


And if that's the case, why do most popular musicians spout utter garbage? Actually, I should stop saying musicians and say singers. I have honestly cut all music with words in it out of my life as singers have nothing to say, and use a lot of words to prove it.
I can't give a definitive answer, because your claim is anecdotal. Possible explanations are sampling bias and confirmation bias on your part.


Depends on how much they put into the training. Are they some kid who picked up a guitar, or have they had training in music theory and applied math for 12 years?
Just posted 2 such references above, but there are more. Yes, amount of musical experience matters in both kids and seniors. In seniors, it appears 10 years is the critical number that differentiates cognitive abilities. Also thanks for the link, it's pretty interesting.

[Zombimode]

Is this a thing? Is Bards having a low Intelligence stat a common stereotype? I've certainly never seen it, at least not outside of a certain stick figure webcomic....


This pretty much.
I've never heard of this stereotype before reading this thread.

[ace rooster]

Actually, most musicians are complete and utter morons. Even the supposedly smarter ones are generally complete tools.
Seriously, do you honestly expect something intelligent to come out of a musician's mouth?
I'll bite
I generally take Brian Cox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cox_(physicist)) of Dare fame seriously.

Popular songs appeal to a wide audience by definition. That means simple general ideas with broad appeal. More specialist songs exist, and are obviously less popular on acount of being specialist. Is it smart to limit the money you make? Do not confuse saying very little with being stupid.

Better to look the fool than be one. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0820.html)

[Lord Raziere]

This pretty much.
I've never heard of this stereotype before reading this thread.

I have heard of it. It probably most often applies to Final Fantasy, or at least originates the "Spoony Bard" stereotype I think in Final Fantasy 4.

Though many more light-hearted comedy fantasy stories take the stereotype and run with it for the sake of it, I've seen that with many other webcomics whose art style is not stick figure at all. Its generally one used in fantasies that aren't trying to be serious at all.

Darker more recent fantasy stories like ASOIAF, the Kingkiller Chronicles, Dragon Age of course generally take a different tact and make them hidden spies and assassins or in the specific case of Kingkiller Chronicles emphasize making it feel as real as possible- a bard whose talent is to play an instrument protects his lute with his life, because the medieval ages are full of bandits and that isn't counting the people INSIDE the cities that want to kill you and take your stuff, your basically a very musical beggar going from inn to inn hoping to get more coin than exposure, and your best bet is to find a noble patron who'll support you if your talent is good enough. Which works out for you if you can get that, until your patron dies from a bad case of feudal politics or a war over feudal politics, or because they went out on a crazy crusade....just hope they don't need marching music. or a propagandist.

[Das_Tabby]

My bards usually get 14 int with a 28 Point Buy, and my GM doesn't even allow BoED oo (then again most of my characters get at least 14 int... i just love skill points xD)
I honestly prefer dumping Wis on a bard, what does he need it for :P? And being somehow impulsive and/or cloudminded fits my Bards usually more

[RegalKain]

For me it depends entirely on character concept. Am I going for a suave know it all? Bump int, Wis and cha, a sagely professor type? Int and Cha, the "seems silly but isn't" bard is Cha and Wis. It's all character concept and all of them can fit the class in one way or another.

Also I've always explained Int, Cha and Wis to my players as.
Int: Book smart academic.
Wis: Street smart observer.
Cha: Force of personality, the salesman.

[Pleh]

Depends on how much they put into the training. Are they some kid who picked up a guitar, or have they had training in music theory and applied math for 12 years?

I was a kid who just picked up a guitar. Then I went and got a 4 year degree in physics (basically applied mathematics).

Some people are both.

[Telonius]

Now I'm starting to wonder ... exactly when and where did the "dumb bard" thing get started? Wonder if we can get a timeline of dumb (or at least unflattering) bard depictions portrayals.

1955: The Court Jester - Hubert Hawkins / Giacomo. Technically a court jester, not a bard; but it's a musical and he's about as close as can be to a Bard. Giacomo is actually kind of badass (supposed to be an assassin) but Danny Kaye's character is a complete doofus (at least until he gets hypnotized).

1975: Monty Python and the Holy Grail - the minstrels. They weren't dumb, exactly, but there was much rejoicing when they were eaten.

1985: The Black Cauldron - Fflewddur Fflam. More of a fop than an idiot, but as I'm remembering it he wasn't too far removed from one. (I think he was depicted as a lot smarter in the book, but it's been decades since I've read it).

1991: Final Fantasy IV- Edward, the Spoony Bard.

2003: Order of the Stick - Elan. 'nuff said.

2006: Avatar: The Last Airbender - the nomads. Basically, a bunch of burned out hippies wandering the land, bard-ing it up.


I'm sure I've missed a bunch.

[Calthropstu]

What did you just say about Weird Al Yankovich?

Hey, I said MOST not ALL. There are some that seem genuinely intelligent. But I am certainly not expecting anything intelligent out of most singers. ESPECIALLY the ones who don't even write their own songs.

[KillianHawkeye]

I have heard of it. It probably most often applies to Final Fantasy, or at least originates the "Spoony Bard" stereotype I think in Final Fantasy 4.

That is a false stereotype. Edward the Bard was not in any way stupid. He was charismatic, a man of passion, a prince, who through tragedy and the loss of the love of his life came to inherit the rule of the desert kingdom. And despite that responsibility, he still used whatever resources were necessary (not to mention his knowledge of esoteric lore on more than one occasion) to aid Cecil's quest. The worst I can say about him is that he was something of a coward.

I don't think anybody really knows what the "spoony" insult was supposed to mean, but a lack of intelligence isn't part of it.