[Movie] Dungeon & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves

[Fabinas]

You may be right. It seems you haven't watched the movie as well, so let's continue this afterwards on actual personal experience.

However, if Bards in D&D have spells, dunno why the creators of the movie would forsake a single moment of spellcasting for the character. Not an essential one, not a deus ex machina, just as a nod to the stereotype and the fans.

It seems odd, that's all i'm saying. I reserve my final judgement for after i watch the movie.

[Logwyn]

With all do respect, if it looks like a duck, but cannot fly and can't quack, is it still a duck?

If it weighs the same as a duck its probably a Witch.

I find it odd that now a days people argue about class, and characters, races/species and such could NEVER be XYZ in a pen and paper RPG. Errr.. If I want my Orcs to run around glowing neon orange than its my game and they glow. If I want all Elves to be Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil without except and only be an NPC race and can't be mages... then that is how they are...

[Fencers]

This is also not the same.

Saying you are a millionaire, in everyday reality, is not the same as saying you are a millionaire in a film role.

We are talking about a film here. What the filmmakers (and license holders) have to say is the baseline. You might not like it, you might think they did a bad job at conveying whatever they claim about the performance or work. But it is their right to dictate to you the audience their work.

I already addressed that with "Inventing Anna". Where someone played the pretend millionaire Heiress, while not being one.

This was based on actual events. In reality, Sorokin was not what she claimed. In the film adaptation, Sorokin is whatever the filmmakers claim that character is- accurate or not.

[beanman12345]

If it weighs the same as a duck its probably a Witch.

I find it odd that now a days people argue about class, and characters, races/species and such could NEVER be XYZ in a pen and paper RPG. Errr.. If I want my Orcs to run around glowing neon orange than its my game and they glow. If I want all Elves to be Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil without except and only be an NPC race and can't be mages... then that is how they are...

Yup and the rules of the movie, he's a bard. He's also stereotypically a bard in basically every way to make it even more obvious that he's a bard. It's just miserable people making up things to cry about.

[Fabinas]

If it weighs the same as a duck its probably a Witch.

I find it odd that now a days people argue about class, and characters, races/species and such could NEVER be XYZ in a pen and paper RPG. Errr.. If I want my Orcs to run around glowing neon orange than its my game and they glow. If I want all Elves to be Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil without except and only be an NPC race and can't be mages... then that is how they are...

We are talking about the stereotype, in a D&D movie, trying to attracy both fan, knowledgeable audience, as well as the general, uneductaed in D&D matters audience.

I can accept concessions that are done to attract both audiences. However, this bard seems to be not so bardish, that's what's argued here.

You can obviously portray your own class in your game your way. But the movie has to move around the stereotypes and not the individual choices of one player. It's supposedly a big advertisement for the game, apart from its cinema movie properties.

- - - Updated - - -

Saying you are a millionaire, in everyday reality, is not the same as saying you are a millionaire in a film role.

We are talking about a film here. What the filmmakers (and license holders) have to say is the baseline. You might not like it, you might think they did a bad job at conveying whatever they claim about the performance or work. But it is their right to dictate to you the audience their work.

This was based on actual events. In reality, Sorokin was not what she claimed. In the film adaptation, Sorokin is whatever the filmmakers claim that character is- accurate or not.

As i said, there seems to be a distance between the artists vision of a Bard and the actual Bard abilities in the game. And while a Bard can be spell-less, it seems the general D&D fan audience perceive that class as a spellcaster. Having a Bard not doing Bard spells seems strange.

It might be because they "rolled" that Bard spell-less. It might be because they didn't want another magic user in the party.

But, essentially, the argument is that people perceive that Bard presentation as not authentic, not original, not so stereotypical. While the other classes seem to be all of the above. Inside the movie content, and not outside of it.

Because sharing the Bard's stat card, saying in interviews "he's a Bard, alright" that's stuff outside the movie. And as audience i am not obliged to know that. It is about presenting the character as a Bard. He dances, he plays the lute in the trailer. That seems Bard-like.

But Bards are (should be? could be?) more than that in game. So they should be in the movie. And if not, it could be conveyed INSIDE the movie. For example, imagine if the party asked him to cast a Bard spell and he says something like "i lost my spell book in Bard school". That could be acknowledged as a deliberate choice to make the Bard spell-less.

I am not sure the movie has something along those lines. And while Syeg's argument is totally absolute, i find merit in his annoyance that the Bard does not show examples of his (possible) spellcasting abilities or that the lack of them is not adequately explained IN THE MOVIE.

[Syegfryed]

I’ve played about two sessions of DND ever so I’m quite ignorant on it but doesn’t the main like DND have sub classes with over lapping ability’s like the path finder video games which are suppose to be very close to path finders table top?

Assuming it is like path finder couldn’t he be a bard sub class with fast hands?

No, bards don't have it, is a specific ability from the thief, the rogue subclass. Bards in dnd are spellcasters, only in the dark sun they aren't, because the setting is fa post-apocalyptic fuckhole and all other spellcasters are fucked as well, they use psionics with is mental shenanigan.

I said it didn't convince me to your side. It would take some good arguments to sway me

like i want to convince you or anyone in the mmochampion forum about movies, lol

So far, in your post history, you never had any good arguments to even make me have second thoughts.

Thats all right, you can call "bad argument" when you don't understand something

Yes they are. You're saying that. A two hour movie had him not cast any of the, what, four whole spells he knows? When he has a shit ton of other abilities available and was clearly demonstrating his other abilities (and high Charisma) time and time again? "NO! HE UH BIRD! HE HAS 2 CAST HIS SPELLZ OR ELSE!!!111 I NO D&D BEST OF ALL, WHAA!" That's the eyerolling take there.

So you didn't watch the movie, that makes sense.

What are his other abilities? hitting someone with a lute and making plans that fail? when did he used his "high charisma"? to persuade people? tell me the parts, since you are so well versed in dnd and the dndn movie.

But alas, having high charisma and making plans is an ability every class can do, like the rogue he is.

You literally can't prove anything you mention and you have to fall back into mockery, which is ironic, since the arguments you make are indeed a joke.

Wizards are proficient with light crossbows. How many times were they using those bad boys in the movie? You best start shouting at the top of your lungs about how they weren't real wizards then.

Wizards are proficient with spells as well you know, which she used a lot, look, the class doing SOMETHING from their toolkit.

Your comparison is the wizard class not using one of their weapon proficiency, to the bard not using A SINGLE THING in their entire repertoire.

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

It should, since you are hurting your brain trying to spin an argument here. "just because eh can doesn't mean he must", but you can't give a single good argument of why he must not

And yes, Faerun (amazing how it's gone from "D&D" to "Faerun only")

No dear, this is dnd, faerun is the world they live in, every setting but one have bard with spells, and the only one that doesn't, is a setting without magic.

has plenty of spell-less variants of classes available. They also have spell-less classes that cast spells, too. Clutch those pearls!

Dark sun and...? say more

Lets see, Greyhawk? spell bards, dragonlance? spell bards when they exist, eberron? spell bards, planescape and spelljammer? spell bards, newly made exandria? look at that, spell bards

Your only argument about the faerunr"bard" not using magic" is the darksun setting that magic doesn't exist anymore, super duper good arguments m8

Because it wasn't appropriate for the situation? Because other options were available?

what loads of horseshit

You want to argue that in a 2h movie there wasnt a single time it was appropriate and there are better options? buzz off

He was literally going to get his head chopped off, WHAT BETTER TIME TO DO MAGIC THAN THAT, but no, it was not appropriate, the best course of action is lying around, trying cut the rope.

I'm sure you use [i]every[/] ability every character you have has available. That goes for WoW too doesn't it? I'm sure your Hunter goes around using Beast Lore left, right, and center. And your Priest uses Fade as a regular part of their rotation (as well as every other skill, of course).

No, im sure i use SOMETHING my character have available, at least ONE thing that make my class my class

This is a rly weak strawman, no one is saying he should do EVERY ability a bard have, BUT AT LEAST ONE that bards are know for, and he doesn't, not a single one. Every class in the movie, barbarian, sorcerer, druid and paladin use shit from their subclass and the bard don't, they even pull off a fucking wildmagic surge, and the bard can't do ONE thing, like they? bullshit

The only time i though he was charming people it was in fact, an illusion, and not made from him, but from the sorcerer

he is not the bard mate, they said he is because popularity of bards, its better to accept that out.

Ahhhhhhh, hahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahha... <pauses for breath> ...hahahahhahahahahhaahahahhahahahahha...

Okay.

Aren't you the guy who didn't know what a fucking tiefling was, too?

No im the guy who said the tiefling should be red, because its cooler, and more iconic.

And aren't you the guy who play artificer and don't do spells? and you want to call shit out?

[Endus]

As i said, there seems to be a distance between the artists vision of a Bard and the actual Bard abilities in the game. And while a Bard can be spell-less, it seems the general D&D fan audience perceive that class as a spellcaster. Having a Bard not doing Bard spells seems strange.

It might be because they "rolled" that Bard spell-less. It might be because they didn't want another magic user in the party.

But, essentially, the argument is that people perceive that Bard presentation as not authentic, not original, not so stereotypical. While the other classes seem to be all of the above. Inside the movie content, and not outside of it.

Because sharing the Bard's stat card, saying in interviews "he's a Bard, alright" that's stuff outside the movie. And as audience i am not obliged to know that. It is about presenting the character as a Bard. He dances, he plays the lute in the trailer. That seems Bard-like.

But Bards are (should be? could be?) more than that in game. So they should be in the movie. And if not, it could be conveyed INSIDE the movie. For example, imagine if the party asked him to cast a Bard spell and he says something like "i lost my spell book in Bard school". That could be acknowledged as a deliberate choice to make the Bard spell-less.

I am not sure the movie has something along those lines. And while Syeg's argument is totally absolute, i find merit in his annoyance that the Bard does not show examples of his (possible) spellcasting abilities or that the lack of them is not adequately explained IN THE MOVIE.

Bards are "charismatic skill monkeys" as much or more than they are "casters" in 5e D&D. Even in the playtest for the upcoming edition (which it seems some of the movie effects, like Druid owlbear shenanigans, were built to preview), Bards are part of the "Expert" class group that focuses on skills along with Rogues and Rangers, not the "Mage" group which focuses on arcane magic spellcasting. They still have full spellcasting, but it isn't the core identity of the class; Bardic Inspiration and skill-monkey statuses have been more-consistent with the D&D bard across editions than spellcasting; it wasn't until 5e that the "full caster" concept came to Bards; in 2e and 3.5 they were 2/3 casters who only ever got up to 6th level spells and didn't start out at level 1 with spellcasting (well, 3.5 they had cantrips at level 1, but not levelled spells).

This is all a very silly debate when the simple answer is "well, even if he had spells, he just didn't use 'em where you could see it happening".

[VMSmith]

No im the guy who said the tiefling should be red, because its cooler, and more iconic.

And aren't you the guy who play artificer and don't do spells? and you want to call shit out?

This is really your entire problem right here, in a nutshell.

You constantly insist that only how you perceive things should be legitimate. If you had started this conversation with "Eh, he felt more like a rogue than a bard, to me" you might still have a discussion but not this much pushback. Instead you said:

he is NOT a damn bard, he is a rogue with a lute

and

No, he is not a bard, period

You are substituting your preferences for everyone's else's and insisting that only yours should count for everyone. Which is ironic given that we are talking about a game whose entire premise is that everyone is making it up as they go along and everything is ok if any particular table is happy with it.

[Syegfryed]

I'm not sure why it needs to turn into a multi-page discussion of people trying to prove others wrong though.

Because people know he isn't a bard, but a rogue, tis more they trying to convince themselves.

It's made perfectly clear in the movie that the guy is obviously a bard. Just the stupidest of hills to die on.

Just because he play the lute? cause bards in dnd don't "just play the lute"

just because he act like the bard from the witcher does not mean he is a bard in the dnd universe.


ITs quite funny.

Barbarian: endure the damage, rage, beat the hsit out of various people, very barbarian.
Paladin: Divine sense, enchant his sword with divine magic, fight fucking well, stoic and the stereotype of good-two-shoes
Druid: literally turn into animals
Sorcerer: innate magic, used Maximillian earthen grasp other spells and cantrips, and even pull out a wildmagic surge to get the reverse gravity going.
Wizard: evard's black tentacles, iconic time stop hell you can even say she did "create contruct" and when concentration broke the spell ended

Everyone of then do what their class do, not fully, but something

The "Bard": use the thief ability of fast hands, and play some lute downtime.

If you stop and think, he is exactly the same as the old dude who became lord of neverwinter,, the one they say it was a rogue. Both good with words, charming, can tell stories, but are sneaky thieves

ITs clearly what happened here, they didn't want to have two rogues(probably the same reason they changed the wizard into a sorcerer), but the movie was already thigh , and instead of making the dude use one cantrip, they decided to call him bard instead, because bards became a lot more popular recently with game of thrones, the witcher series and critical role/vox machina

Which is again, not a problem that he is not a bard but a rogue, i just don't understand why people are so mad about the fact.

[Endus]

No im the guy who said the tiefling should be red, because its cooler, and more iconic.

That only applied for a relatively brief period in Faerunian history, because a bunch of warlocks did a ritual that changed all resident Tieflings in the world to be Asmodean's bloodline, rather than whatever their original bloodline was.

That A> only ever affected Tieflings on Faerun, and B> has had no preventitive effect on those other bloodlines re-emerging where they were lying dormant, so even on Faerun, they're not all red any more.

You're free to make a red Asmodean tiefling all you like. If you're trying to argue all Tieflings should be red, you're completely wrong according to the lore.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is again, not a problem that he is not a bard but a rogue, i just don't understand why people are so mad about the fact.

Because it's not a "fact". It's canonically false, pure headcanon about what you wish were true, and you're being abusive and condescending to anyone and everyone who points that out to you.



There's the "facts". You might not like that fact, but that just means you're unhappy with the facts, not that your preferences magically supersede reality, like you're claiming.

[Syegfryed]

This is really your entire problem right here, in a nutshell.

You constantly insist that only how you perceive things should be legitimate. If you had started this conversation with "Eh, he felt more like a rogue than a bard, to me" you might still have a discussion but not this much pushback. Instead you said:

Thats because he is not the bard class like the other dude is the sorcerer class

That is not a matter of preference, its the reality

He can be a "bard" in the real world context of "someone who play music and/or tell stories", but he is not the bard class, that is first and foremost, a spellcaster, that enchant and charm people, do illusions and other magic.

If we go for the bit of "someone who play music and/or tell stories, the dude that betrayed then and became lord of neverwinter is also, a bard, in the final he is telling a story, like "bards" do.

[Corvus]

I've been playing d&d since the late 80s, across numerous editions and a bard can be damn near anything the player wants. Heck, I've played a fighter with more int and cha than str who was the face of the party. Mind you, that was in 2e were that was perfectly feasible before later editions pigeon-holed it as a dumb beatstick with zero use outside combat.

Bards were always a jack of all trades. They knew a little bit of this, a little bit of that. Which way they leaned depended on the player and various options taken. But at the heart of it all was a musically inclined charismatic free spirit. There have been variant bard classes with little to no magic.

If we are going by current rules, druids can't turn into owlbears, so maybe the druid isn't a druid either.

[Shadowferal]

You all are such...nerds. I love reading this thread!

[beanman12345]

In the movie the group suffers countless setback. the only thing that keeps them going, is because the bard keeps using bardic inspiration. The main reason they are even successful in the end is because Bard hits a natural 20 on his bardic inspiration and everyone becomes even more OP than they were in the rest of the movie and they just wreck the villain. It's not complicated, it's it's quite very obvious, he's a bard.

[Endus]

If we are going by current rules, druids can't turn into owlbears, so maybe the druid isn't a druid either.

If we want to be SUPER nitpicky, they're building a new edition and doing playtests, and the "new" druid's Wildshape rules would allow for the owlbear. While those rules are up in the air and prone to change, they have said they want things like that to be within the range of what druids can do, it's just a matter of finding a balanced system the community approves of.

Better to see it in light of the upcoming edition. Where Bards are an Expert group class like Rogues, not a Mage group class like Wizards and Sorcerors and Warlocks.

[Syegfryed]

Its funny that the arguments devoled to "well, Holga can also be a wizard, because i played one wizard with 20 strenght that never cast spells and just hited people"

Unbelivable.

In the movie the group suffers countless setback. the only thing that keeps them going, is because the bard keeps using bardic inspiration. The main reason they are even successful in the end is because Bard hits a natural 20 on his bardic inspiration and everyone becomes even more OP than they were in the rest of the movie and they just wreck the villain. It's not complicated, it's it's quite very obvious, he's a bard.

There is no "natural 20" in bardic inspiration, he is doing what anyone with enough charisma do, in every movie, you can say he can pull out good persuasion rolls, but anyone can do that, especially rogues who have expertise

He is a rogue.

- - - Updated - - -

Better to see it in light of the upcoming edition. Where Bards are an Expert group class like Rogues, not a Mage group class like Wizards and Sorcerors and Warlocks.

Yet, bards are still full on spelcasters, even more "experts" because they can take spells from other classes and one of the biggest complaints from the playtest, that the devs aknoledged, was the lack of magic secrets or they getting then at a too high levels

[beanman12345]

He is a rogue.

The Bard, The Barbarian, the Druid, the Sorceress, all have a level in Rogue. The only one that doesn't is the Paladin. I'm becoming convinced you just didn't see the movie at this point.

[Syegfryed]

The Bard, The Barbarian, the Druid, the Sorceress, all have a level in Rogue.

And the rogue didn't had even one level in bard

ironic isn't

[Endus]

Yet, bards are still full on spelcasters, even more "experts" because they can take spells from other classes and one of the biggest complaints from the playtest, that the devs aknoledged, was the lack of magic secrets or they getting then at a too high levels

And? None of this supports your claims. He's a Bard, canonically. You might not like that, but your dislike doesn't overrule canon.

Nothing's solid about OneD&D yet about class design, other than the class groups. What is solid is Edgin's class. Which is Bard.

Feel free to cite me literally any canonical source stating he's Rogue. Literally anything. Because right now, you're just making stuff up and being abusive to others.

[Syegfryed]

And? None of this supports your claims.

You are the one that brought onednd, when onedndn literally refute your point, proving bards are full on spellcasters.

And the rogue in the movie don't do anything the bard class in dnd do. Canonically and mechanically he is a rogue.

Feel free to cite me literally any canonical source stating he's Rogue. Literally anything.

Oh, the movie quite much says he is a thief, even him himself, the rogue subclass

Because right now, you're just making stuff up and being abusive to others

Where im being abusive? do you even understand the meaning of this words? saying discussing about a character in a movie being the same as being abusive? cool off