I can't properly explain why, I just hate them as a fantasy RPG class. Most other classes make sense - fighters to hit things, clerics to heal and protect, thieves to sneak about and open things, etc. But Bards just really pistachio me off. I have never played one and never want to, and if I meet them in game I generally want to kill them. Irrational? Maybe, but I just don't get them...

Bards are the loremasters and the charismatic faces of the party.  They're the diplomats who say just the right things, the scholars who know just where to go and just what to do in those obscure situations, both in and out of dungeons.  They can also be the everyman when it comes to class abilities, depending on the system and the edition.  Some have them be just "lesser rogues" with some flavor, but others have them be that person who can fill any role in a pinch.  They will never, ever be as good at it as the expert, but they're not as bad as, say, sending a wizard to fight on the front lines or asking a fighter to sneak ahead and scout things out.

They are also the performers and spymasters, the ones who can get you the audience with the noble or member of royalty when all other doors are closed, even if your intentions are very much nefarious.

And no other class lets you manipulate the energies of the megaverse using Perform: Erotic Art.

So what everyone is trying to say Jarodemo is...you are completely right in hating them. :'D

I liked 2nd edition bards; and first edition bards had the feel of Merlin. I'm not so keen on later edition bard.

I love bards.
As stated earlier they do what no one else wants to do. Someone playing a bard is there, usually, for the social aspect and not the killing aspect.
No other class can come up with a giant BS story about how something works and have people instantly believe it! Bards are the prefect "any class".

Bards are about my favourite class to play. But mostly because I really enjoy being in the support role. And I love skillmonkeys and I love jacks-of-all-trades. The only thing about them that irks me is that their buffing mechanic is so inextricably linked to performing. A lot the time, I don't necessarily want to make my companions fight better by singing or poetry or playing the lute. But that's the sort of default position.

But I like playing the guy who knows the local customs, can converse with the serfs and the nobles, who knows all the stories everyone else has forgotten, who spends his combat actions helping the rest of the party by controlling the battlefield and the enemies.

I had a Pathfinder Bard once focused on his Whip and the whole time I played him I never once made a straight attack roll. But I was tripping and disarming and Charming and Greasing like a BAUSS. And, when you needed to Bluff, Bluff, Bluff the Stupid Ogre? I was your man.

I have a lot of fun with them. But, like any class that has a lot of Fluff sort of assumed in their Crunch (I'm looking at you, Paladin!), it's really easy to be annoying and disruptive under the aegis of 'It's what my character would do.'

In reply to truemane (msg # 7):

Admit it. You like that part the best.

In reply to Gaffer (msg # 8):

Sigh. You're right.

*ashamed*

Jarodemo, bards aren't for everyone. Some people like being masters of arcane secrets. Some people like being able to cut people down with a greatsword. Some people like to stick their enemies in the kidney with a dagger for insane damage. Some people like to be servants of their gods.

And some people like to be the one that keeps all those people from getting in trouble whenever talking is required. This is a party role that goes beyond just fantasy RPGs, and into any kind of group dynamic. A Shadowrun player would gladly tell you just how much easier having a proper Face makes a run (and how much more you get paid with one), on the same level as the hacker or mage. Sure, they might be kindof useless when you get to combat, but a good Face can talk your team past those three security checkpoints you otherwise would have had to fight your way through, meaning the alarms start much later, meaning you're less likely to get in a shootout with Knight Errant.

The same is true in fantasy games. You want to get information on the situation in town? The bard's your guy. You want to try and talk your way out of an ambush that would otherwise see at least a couple dead or dying PCs? The bard's your guy. You want to convince the dragon to pay you for making a problem go away? The bard's your guy.

A well played bard is a thing of beauty.

Heck, when we introduced a friend of ours to 3.5 D&D, she wanted to try the bard.  And she's picked it up pretty well, adding to our group's synergy.

Also, she like casting Glitterdust a lot. :D

The player playing the bard has to pay attention all of the time.

Most everyone else can get involved in OOC table talk and chatter, but not the bard. He has to be ready to start doing his thing... or else the GM surprise can doom the whole party.

Bards are generally awesome, but I think they've been "overpowered" in many editions of D20-type rules.

I don't generally have that problem in my games, as I run HERO System, so if something is overpowered, it's my own damn fault :D

I think that might be the crux of it for me. While the fighter is laying into the goblins with his sword and the mage is blasting them with fireballs, the Bard is strumming his lute playing singing Kum Bay Yah...

I think maybe my view has been blinkered, and that Bards really need to be better utilised in a non-dungeon crawl environment. The analogy with the Shadowrun Face is a good one, though I've not played the system I get the meaning.

Maybe I should just play one and see what happens...! A heroic suicide song could always be used in an emergency...

Yep! Hard to find a more worthless Character Class to adventure with. They are insufficient as Fighters, insufficient as Rogues and insufficient as Spell Casters.

My NPCs and Monsters never give them time to sing, no matter what it is they wish to sing. When they try, they never make their Concentration checks.

Concentration checks? Yes, silly, when you get hit with an arrow you have to Concentrate on your singing just as you do your spell casting . . . and they never succeed.

Worthless.

If your biggest hiccup is the performing aspect, see if you can find a GM who will work with you to reskin it a bit. I once had a skald (warrior-bard) whose performance was "dance" for mechanical purposes on paper. IC, his "dance" was his art of using his sword in combat. It was inspiring. This allowed me to, after activating Inspire Courage in the first round of combat, use his combat dance to fight while maintaining the bardic ability (had to make concentration checks when hit to maintain the flow of his movements).

There are also feats that extend how long the effect persists after you end your performance, so you could use Perform: Oratory to give an inspiring battle cry on the first round and then continue combat as usual with buffs intact without interfering with any other actions you would normally take.
This message was last edited by the user at 17:18, Tue 03 Mar 2015.

In reply to Mystic-Scholar (msg # 15):

Not my experience.

My gal pal plays Bards almost exclusively.

In every edition of D&D since 2nd, she has excelled, using straight Bard with maybe a prestige class or package or whatever the 2nd edition deal was.

She usually had Concentration high enough to generally pass those checks, at least with as much success as a spellcaster.

And in 3.5, Bards were, arguably, overpowered.  Armor, Martial Weapons, and Arcane Spells with no spell failure %, plus "free" buffs to the party.  Now, at higher level play in 3.5, they sucked without a Prestige Class.

Thus far her 5E Bard is doing just as well; but we only just hit 3rd Level :D

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 17):

I guess it depends on the GM, or maybe the game.

I've been GMing since the late '70s, haven't had a successful Bard yet.

2E Gypsy bards - I had two versions, always my favourite characters!  Bard is usually the first class I consider when making a new character.

I've never really liked the Bard as a Class.  To me Bard is more of a job description than an adventurer.  You expect to delve dungeons with Fighters, Thieves and Magic-Users not Bards, Accountants and Green Grocers.

The most fun in every variation I have every played, from AD&D to 3.5, LotR, and many other systems.

But of course like every game, it's all on the GM to make it that good :)
This message was last edited by the user at 18:13, Tue 03 Mar 2015.

Then the problem is not the Bard class, but your interpretation of it.

There are tons of literary sources for the Bard as Adventurer that long predate any pen-and-paper RPG.

Most notably the Skald of Nordic lore, as mentioned above.

You are welcome to not like the class; but please don't just ignore the reason the class / archetype exists.  Bards are adventurers; someone who just sings and dances is an entertainer :D

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 22):

Here, ! Here !

I have had a Dwarven Bard that specialized in a dagger whip, a Human knightly Bard that acted like a paladin and fought awesome with swords, a woodsman bard that was fantastic with a bow. And of course the all famous which I think if you have played a bard you played one of these, a Thief/Bard 2nd ed. AD&D.

It's never the class it's the class of players and GM :) and Setting, Campaign World. For me, I can't play wizards, just don't seem to enjoy it as much as other classes.

Yes, there are many sources like Finn MacCool, but Skalds are not how d&d Bards are generally portrayed these days.  Mincing Minstrels in tights that sing, grant bonuses and are role-played like Junior Shakespeare in the Park thespians is what I see.  Which is odd because you'd think that as a Jack-of-All-Trades the Bard would be interpreted broadly, but they aren't.

The only place I've seen them done interestingly is in 1e d&d.  At least they were more like your Warrior-Poets or "Skalds".  Gellor One-eye was definitely and adventurer and I can't imagine him in a puffy shirt with tights.

But only for those abilities that actually require concentration, surely? Or do you houserule that all Bardic Singing can be interrupted by damage?

I'd also like to point out that the OP started this as a "I hate Bards" thread, not a "defend Bards" or "Bards are groovy" thread.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 26):

Actually I think you'll find the question was "Does anyone else hate Bards?" to which "No, and here's why" is a quite legitimate answer

In reply to Sir_Chivalry (msg # 27):

So is "Yes and here's why."

In reply to truemane (msg # 25):

As a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division and as a person who "got into trouble" and continued playing with guns after I finished my service, it is easy for me to determine that you have never been . . . shot.

Yes, a person who is speaking, singing, casting a spell, or adding ingredients to the stew, are going to need a Concentration check to continue their activity uninterrupted once they've been . . . shot. Even if shot with an arrow.

In reply to Mystic-Scholar (msg # 29):

No, I've never been shot. I'm also not sure that D&D is the place to go for realism. But that's a different conversation.

I just think, of course Bards are going to be useless in your games if you create houserules that make their signature ability(ies) almost impossible to do, and specifically direct your NPC's and monsters to take tactical advantage of a rule you created.

But to each his own, I 'spose.

I have not myself seen anyone play a Bard in the way you describe; in 20+ years.  Doesn't mean you are wrong and I am right.

Just means you cannot know everything from only your own perspective.

Most of the Bards I have seen are much more like, say, Tyrion Lannister, or the one dopey but awesome Zena sidekick, or like the above-mentioned Skalds (who did in fact wade into battle singing.)

Then don't ever play an arcane spellcaster, since they are even *more* in danger of running into this rule.

"Concentration Checks" are in fact a rule, not a made-up thing, and affect any class that casts spells in the sense of D20-based rules if not most or all rule systems, and the bard does not - usually - wholly rely on either Bardic music, or their spells.

I think for me, it is more I'm cool with bards, but I don't like a lot of the people who choose to play bards. Especially when they use Bardic Knowledge to find out more about my character and his secrets and then expose them to the entire party.

In reply to Wyrm (msg # 33):

That's a thing? I've never come across that. That would drive me nuts too. Jerks are jerks, regardless of what they play.

Ah! So . . . none of your PCs die?

I mean, after all, Death is a "realism," which, apparently, has no place in your game.

Yes, your sitting, listening to some nice piece of music, the dog runs by and . . . the needle goes scratching its way across the record. Old school, I know, but you get the point.

Bard's singing, arrow slams into his side, stomach, shoulder, et al, guess what just happened to the singing? Spell interruptous!

Yep! Just like Nash, can't mumble the words and expect the spell to work. Get ready to fight the Army of Darkness, Nash!

In my 30+ years I've seen it dozens of times.  So much so that I'm fully in the OP's camp and enjoy bashing Bards.

All anyone can do is share from their own perspective.  In this case I am happy to do so.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 28):

And no one said it wasn't. You can take umbrage with people liking bards all you want, but the original concept of the thread does not forbid the discussion. That you happen to hold an opinion that's in the minority (here) does not mean that they are wrong and you are right any more than they are right and you are wrong.

Though from a personal experience, I've never seen bards played as prancing fools. Those are minstrels. Bards are skilled orators, diplomats, entertainers of a skald or master poet level.

They are as was said before, Tyrion more than Elan.

And it sounds like you need to find better players with more imagination to play with, at a glance.

I feel as though, if the Bard class had been called something different from the beginning, not as many people would be opposed to the class. When I hear someone mention the title of Bard, all that initially comes to mind is hearing the song "Brave Brave Sir Robin" from Monty Python SftHG.

Maybe Lorekeeper would be better received? *shrug*

In reply to That Guy With The Face (msg # 38):

Wanderer?

See that's the problem, how do you encompass all the bard is and can be?

Silvertongue sounds A) like a prestige class and B) too limiting (what of the bard who doesn't max out Diplomacy?)

I'm with you on the idea though, that the name is half the problem

I actually like Wanderer. It's the professional adventurer who travels about collecting, creating, and occasionally embellishing stories so that he has tales to share (either through storytelling, song, etc) at each stop. In his travels, he's picked up bits of information and a variety of skills. He's not great at any one thing, but he gets by.

Edit: Now I really want to play a 3.5 or 5e Bard. Haha
This message was last edited by the user at 19:24, Tue 03 Mar 2015.

In reply to Sir_Chivalry (msg # 37):

Who said I was taking umbrage?  I don't care if other people like or even love Bards.  More power to anyone that enjoys them.

The OP asked if anyone else hates Bards.  I do.  It's just my opinion.  As you say there is no right or wrong answer.  When I DM I don't single them out for destruction like Mystic-Scholar so gleefully seems to do, but I have no interest in playing one and enjoy making fun of them.

What possess you to think I single them out for destruction? I don't. But the consensus I get from some of the post here is that many single them out for protection.

My NPCs aren't stupid, they possess as high an intelligence score as the PCs do -- on average. They are well aware of what the "singer in the back" is doing and they shoot at him, plain and simple. Since the Bard rarely has an AC of 247, he usually ends up . . . shot!

Now he must roll a Concentration check, to insure that he doesn't change the timbre, the cadence, the key, etc. Why would anyone think that wouldn't change the outcome of the song, which is, in essence, a bardic spell?

It's not so much that I "hate" the Bard Class, I simply find them next to useless.

If the Bard is so "useless", why is your supposedly smart NPC even focusing on them rather than, say, the mage casting Fireball/Summon Ally/Wish or the cleric casting Heal/Turn Undead?

From an early post you flatly state that they are never given time to sing and never make their checks.  That seems to indicate that you specifically target them no matter what.

Still, I apologize for my hyperbole.

By that logic, any arcane spellcaster is similarly challenged or "useless."

Just sayin'.

Who says they aren't? Do you suppose I attack a party of six with just two, or three NPCs? All Ranged Attackers concentrate on the "guys in the back," while the Melee Attackers concentrate on the guys in the front.

I am absolutely shocked that so many of you find that a puzzling concept.




Not so. Perhaps you missed my original comment? "They are insufficient as Fighters, insufficient as Rogues and insufficient as Spell Casters." Message #15.

Your Bard is never as adept at picking locks as is your Rogue, never as good at spells as is your Wizard, never as good a healing as is your Cleric and ever as good a front line fighter as is your . . . Fighter.



Sorry for the confusion. Allow me to explain the game rules to you. Their "turn" is whatever they can do in six seconds. You know of a song that is sung in six seconds? Most I know of last two and a half minutes. So, they need to sing every turn -- for most of the fight -- to maintain the effect. Sure, they do other things while they sing, just as "you" talk while you fight. But that doesn't negate the Concentration check for their "spell-song."

"Fred! You need to move to the left to . . . Argh!"

Yep! Shot with an arrow. That's the "chance to sing" that they're not going to get.

In reply to Mystic-Scholar (msg # 46):

Then you cannot have a jack-of-all-trades of any sort in your campaigns?

Seriously; "I don't like Bards" is all well and good.  It is.

"I don't like Bards because they are ineffective" is, generally speaking, also acceptable, if an arguable point.

But the specifics you mention would penalize or challenge other classes just as much as a Bard.  And the rules of the game allow one to play a Bard; thus yes, you can sing a song in 6 seconds.  Just like you can cast a spell in 6 seconds despite all the text about spells taking complex incantations and gestures and such.

My Mage is not as good as the Fighter in direct combat; yet in a situation where I can't use Magic, I'll whack the bad guy with my staff.

I challenge you; go to your previous posts and replace every instance of "bard" with "wizard" and see what you are actually saying.

Feel free to stick up for Bards if you have a coherent argument... :)

My Elven mage had no offensive spells left and was all alone in the fog. He had to fight off the unwanted attention of a zombie with just his staff. Technically he didn't land a single hit but he was damned proud of his efforts until the big fighty types turned up to snick it's head off...! I think he secretly quite enjoyed it!

Sure, but I always stress that my gaming group had best have a "real" tank, thief, cleric and wizard. After that, put in anything you want. I like a party of six to eight . . . but I would suggest not replacing one of the "basics" with a Bard, or any Prestige Class. What? You say some of them are "great" at higher levels? I strongly suggest that you first live to see the higher levels.



It's amazing how many spells are a Full Round Action . . . meaning you can't talk, or walk, or rummage in your backpack, et al, while you're casting them.

If you wish to treat the Song exactly like a spell, then your Bard either cannot fight, or cannot move, while he's singing. Which do you choose? You see, the particular spell-song he's singing might be a Full Round Action.

Everyone does things their own way. More power to you. I told you why I don't like them. Your only responses are: "That's no reason not to like them!"

YOU need to wake up, because I can dislike them for any reason I want.

This is currently going on in Google+ too. ALL "points of view" are valid, stop trying to insinuate that mine isn't.

In a minute, I'm going to start retaliating with: "That's no reason to like them!"

Yes, you see, I can do that too.

I don't like Bards, I told you why -- since I was, for all intents and purposes asked -- and that's sufficient.

"I don't like Coke, I prefer Pepsi."

"Why?"

"Because it taste better."

"No it doesn't! Have you read the ingredients!?"

Sorry, but that is what's happening here.

I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone here, stop trying to force yours on me. We disagree. Enough said. I'm not trying to win you over to my point of view, keep yours and welcome to it.

Move on to someone else, please. Thank you.

I'm just challenging preconceptions / misconceptions.

I've said multiple times that anyone is welcome to their opinion and have mostly been focusing on the facts.

Whatevs.

How can you focus on the facts when we are discussing pure opinion?

For me there is no preconception; I've been playing this game for many, many years and I don't like Bards.  There is no misconception as there is no right way or wrong way to play a role-playing game.

M-S is correct when he says that his retaliation of "There is no reason to like them." if we continue down this road.  However, I don't really agree with his interpretation of the rules, but I refuse to get into an argument in which I have to defend the Bard.

Because my responses are themselves opinions?

I think some of us are seeing this as an argument, and not a discussion.

Imagine that :D

I like bards. I do.

But in 3.5? They're if anything underpowered. Even as a diplomat, you're better off playing a rogue with the right skills. The arcane spells they have access to are not particularly powerful. Before anyone brings up Use Magic Device... rogues can take that too, and with more skill points to play with.

Bards get the coolest hats, whats not to like about them. Plus I bet none of you (who hate the bard so far) has ever tried playing a ½ Orc Bard with a specialty in striptease, so don't hate it until you give it a try. Those elven ladies couldn't get enough of that guy.

I am truly surprised that no one brought up some of the more film-based bardic archetypes.

(Before anyone goes and says it - yes, I know my first example is a book; but I am throwing this out from the film perspective:)

3 Musketeers
Pirates of the Caribbean.

The Musketeers themselves.
Captain Jack Sparrow

Say what you will (or preferably don't) about the franchises, but these characters are quintessential bards.

Fafrd and the Grey Mouser were arguably bards (Fafrd was definitely a skald.)

As was mentioned earlier, but I will recap:

1) Panache
2) General Likability, even if you don't want to like them.
3) Able to fit into the lowest rungs and highest rungs of society.
4) Some skill with weapons, but there are definitely better out there.
5) Some degree of uncanny knowledge-ability on about .05% of 100% of all topics.

Now, each of these gets a bit mired once you go into edition wars: but, most of the reason bards get so many "daheck?" abilities is due to the 'need' for 'mechanical balance'.

Again, as a previous poster said: Reskin the Bard if you don't like its RAW.

Yes, it does seem odd to have a lute-wielding character singing, but consider this: Real Life Armies carried musical instruments into battle with them.  They reduced fatigue in a very literal sense by helping people focus on marching and staying in time with one another to stay in formation.  It's the same reason why today we call cadence when we make those long runs,
"1, 2, 3 and a 4 ****, somebody anybody start a war hey.." (very PC version.)

So, no it's not completely out of place at all.

During the medieval ages, it was not uncommon for lesser nobles to have a retinue with them that included entertainers.

Also, Monthy Python... yes, I'm about to go there - but, Cowardly Brave Sir Robin has his minstrels =)  Yes, later they became food. but *shrug*.
This message was last edited by the user at 00:06, Wed 04 Mar 2015.

And there was much rejoicing.

yaaaay...

If only had it been so.
Instead, writers seem to have decided that they are specialist magic-users who somehow ought to be able to cast any conceivable magic related to sound, because.. well, they sing, right, and that's sound...

Sort of like deciding that a "Chef" class should be able to throw fireballs.

Had they truly been what you've described, it would have been a valuable class.

See, the problem of ever mixing diplomacy and wizardry is this: no one trusts a wizard not to use magic.  That's what wizards do.  If Bards are magicians too, no one trusts them.

"Hello, I'd like to talk..."
"Are you carrying a lute?  To hell with that, you'll probably try a Charm spell.  I'll talk to the Rogue.  Them, you can trust.  Meanwhile I'll have my guards watch you so you don't cast a spell."

In reply to Eur512 (msg # 59):

I think that they tried to make them kinda both, and it's a bit of an awkward fit. The Pathfinder tried to do a little more along the Jack-of-all-Trades route, but the Factotum is really that class.

I like Bards, but mostly because of the mechanical role they fit into within a party (bugging, support, control, backup), not at all because of the Rockstar fluff.

It's funny how much gaming has changed over the years.  I don't think we ever even thought about character roles in a party prior to the advent of 3e.  It seems to really have become prevalent when MMORPGs hit stride with EQ and WoW.

The only thing that was considered essential was a Cleric simply because not having a Cleric meant that there would be an absurd amount of down time while adventuring (you took 5 damage?  Without a Cleric that took 5 days to heal with bed rest).

In reply to Shiv (msg # 61):

Oh, yes we did :D

My first gaming experiences were old 1st Edition D&D (not the boxed set.)

This was, what, 1987?  88?  And yeah, the very first campaign, we had a Fighter (yours truly), a Fighter-Wizard (or whatever the elven dual class deal was called), a Cleric, and a Thief.

I do recall some game systems where "roles" weren't an issue at all; White Run's Storyteller games, my TMNT and Other Strangeness games, but every fantasy game I have ever played has largely stuck to the necessity of the "well-rounded party."  Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, generally.

And to this day a party in D&D without a "dedicated healer" is generally fubar.

Again; your experiences may differ as every GM and player is different.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 61):

I have to agree with jtcbrown here.  Yes, there have been the 'famous four' so to speak long prior to main-stream MMOs.  Those Mainstream MMOs just highlighted it by emphasizing the names of those roles and making it more clearly understood.

And don't tell me you ever made it through the temple of elemental evil without a rogue and cleric.  Played as-written, I don't see four fighters or three fighters and a wizard surviving an hour. (thinking AD&D 2e here)

What modern MMOs have done is create concise terminology for it instead of just everyone 'knowing it' innately.

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 62):

You may have; we didn't.  We just adapted our tactics to whatever characters we were playing at the time.

Robilar made it through the Temple of Elemental Evil by himself and he wasn't a well balanced party.

How you play is more important than what you play.

For those old timers such as me, you may recall that Bards in the 1st edition (late 70s, early 80s) could not be created at initial character creation.  Instead, you had to reach at least 5th level as a fighter, then a dual class as a thief to at least 5th level.  Then the character would dual class again as a druid -- yes, a druid -- but would progress from there as a "bard" under druid tutelage.

Now--those were powerful bards!

2nd edition pretty much eviscerated their power and made them a support, lore, and charisma based character with a "jack of all trades, master of none" quality.  I never really met a 2nd edition bard that I found would be formidable.  It had two helpful purposes:

1) For players who really wanted that type of roleplaying experience, they could get it (and depending on the setting, it might be useful).  For example, a historical setting may have use for a bard more than a combat heavy fantasy setting.

2) The best use of a bard is as an NPC.  The PCs get support and boosts without having an NPC take away their glory in battle.

Unfortunately, the 2nd edition became the norm and image of the bard, and the 1st edition one was forgotten.

I have never played 3rd edition and on, so I can't comment on those, but it looks like they just tried to adjust from the 2nd edition, rather than start with a new model from scratch.

Nope.

Do I hate them? No. Do I think it should be a prestige class? Yes.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 64):

So anyone who failed to survive the original ToEE's "Death, No Save" traps - without prior knowledge of them - is a sub-par player, playing it wrong?  Got it.  ;)

Seriously; if you are having fun, you are playing it right.  This "how you play" stuff seems to imply (and you may not intend this but it is easy for the reader imply that you do) anyone that plays differently is wrong.

I wish my players and GM's had all been as awesome and great as yours such that we don't need the "usual four" for a D&D game.  But that is not the case, for most players, for most every version of D&D there has been.

Just like most tables find it difficult to have a campaign that doesn't focus on combat and loot.  Sure, you find the occasional group who truly role-play, and can manage characters of different levels or abilities without problems, who can handle player character death with no problem.  Most can't.  And it grates on me to see some players act like they are "better than" those players.

Whilst I agree that there have always been roles, in my experience what happened in 3e is that all of a sudden people were comparing classes to each other. In 2e, I never recall anyone complaining that the fighter was underpowered. Or that the thief was weak. Or that the wizard was by far the most powerful. Maybe different XP values made a difference, I don't know.

Though -now-, since 3e, people complain about the overpoweredness of earlier edition classes as well, so who knows.

I find compared to 3e, 2e bards were powerful. Being able to in theory learn any wizard spell helped.

Which is interesting, because in the 1st edition, they could not learn any wizard spells.  They learned only druid spells, but had already fairly mastered some fighter and thief abilities (to at least 5th level each).

2nd edition eternally changed this image of them as powerful druidic loremasters, making them weak wandering minstrels and entertainers--who somehow seem to get on everyone's nerves despite the high charisma...

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 68):

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm some sort of gaming snob.  I'm just sharing my opinions and my experiences.  Perhaps my writing comes off as adversarial?

I love role-playing in all its forms and I've said that there is no one way to play too.  I've been blessed with a really excellent long term crew (same basic line up going on 28 years now) and I've also been in dozens of other groups over the years (some great, some Gawd-awful) as well.  Is my experience more valid or valuable than someone who is just learning?  Nope not one bit.  The only difference is that I have many more stories and observations to share and I challenge you to find a post I've made in this thread where I somehow implied that my way is better or more
valuable than anyone else.



You're putting words in my mouth here.  I was responding to Gamerhandle who said that you can't survive the Temple without a Cleric and a Thief.  Robilar not only survived he conquered it (though the consequences proved costly for him if urban legend is accurate).  For my money that disproves that a well balanced group is the only way of doing things.  I'm not saying one way is better or worse just that there is more than 1 way to skin a cat and my crew generally did things without the balance.

See, in 2ed. I went for the Blade kit for my bard...

I didn't find bards weak in 2e. I played one through the Temple of Elemental Evil; and did passably well. (Admittedly, the Complete Handbooks were allowed, and he had the loremaster kit). I also haven't seen a real strong anti-bard bias until 3rd; whether they were seen as more useful earlier, or it's just that an image became ingrained that everyone had to be equally able to contribute, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure it's really fair to talk about Robilar. We don't know whether the dungeon he went through was the same as the one that was published.

I agree that the Option book (Complete Handbook) makes a difference in 2nd edition, as does the level.  A high level bard (like a high level monk in 1st edition) can be formidable.  The problem is that then the bard tends to be really just a wizard with some special skills on the side--IMHO.

I agree; I'm just not sure that makes them bad. Out of the three editions I know bards for I find 1st the most flavorful and most fun to play, 2nd is more fun than third; and third is just frustrating - in that they're not good enough casters to be like 2nd edition ones, and they really can't compete as a face compared to a rogue. They really are quite weak, and this was the edition where weakness of classes started really being highlighted.

Why isn't it fair to bring up Robilar?  Gamerhandle said he couldn't imagine it being done.  I just pointed out that it could and has been done by some one famous.  Was that Temple the exact same as the one Robilar delved into?  Probably not exact, but knowing Gygax you can be pretty darn sure it was at least as tough if not tougher than the published version.

Because Gygax was also superb at tailoring the adventure to the players he had; and the players he had were also superb (at least supposedly so) at garnering every last drop of advantage.

Just the nature of text communication, Shiv.

Was more trying to make a point than specifically accusing you of anything; every rule has an exception, but the rule remains nonetheless.

In reply to willvr (msg # 77):

OK, but that doesn't invalidate my statement.  An essential DMing tool is to tailor make a campaign that is both challenging and enjoyable for their players isn't it?

I think we've drifted pretty darn far away from hating on Bards at this point.

And there was much rejoicing.

In reply to Shiv (msg # 79):

Except, that you were using it as an example for how a published module didn't need the four roles. Within a published module; barring exceptionally gifted players in that regard, you'll need them. Barring an exceptional GM, you'll need them for homebrews too.

But, ideally you're right. I just don't think many GMs (myself amongst them) can cope very well without certain roles. Some are more easily covered than others though.

And that depends on game system and setting, as well.

I can do a Fantasy HERO game, or pretty much any non-fantasy game, without the "usual four" roles.

As to the drift; all conversations do this (and it is fascinating, really) and yet all of this touches on the subject.  If bards are not "ideal" or "best in class" they can and do certainly shift the balance of the party.  If you have four players, and are in a situation where you need those usual roles filled, a bard...  probably doesn't match up to the needs of the group.  Like them or not.  With five players, the bard makes a great 5th, so long as the other roles are filled.

In reply to jtcbrown (msg # 82):

True. I was purely speaking about DnD; though in all it's incarnations. Any skill-based game I can do without four roles a lot easier; though any game where combat is an important part probably needs some way of healing.

Well, in pretty much any system, you're going to need to have certain roles covered. The nature of those roles changes depending on the system and setting. In Shadowrun, it would be Magic, Muscle, Matrix, and Manipulation. In D&D, it is Tank, Healing, Skillmonkey, and Magic. A Bard fits nicely in the skillmonkey section, with a side of support magic. They're an excellent support class. Light on direct damage and other such things, but there is a definite niche for people who want to be in a support role.

In a normal DnD adventure, which hasn't been specifically tailored for the characters, a bard does not fill in the skill monkey rogue; because they can't find traps; or even if they somehow found them, remove them.

Now in Pathfinder, with their rules of it, they can. But not in any of the versions of DnD I'm familiar with.

RPOL says this isn't enough text to reply to Willvr but here it is.

As has been pointed out, the 1st Edition Bard. But that was different than anything since.

Okay yeah, fair enough. I have a passing familiarity with 1st; but I have never seen a 1st edition bard in action.

Point remains the same for 2nd and 3.5 though. I'm not really sure about trapfinding mechanics in 4e or 5e admittedly.

I'm the rogue for our group, but I'm not a "face" con artist type.  I prefer doing the sneaky DEX stuff rather than social CHA.

As I said earlier, when we were introducing a new player to 3.5ed D&D, she wanted to try a Bard.  And it's actually been a good way for her to get her feet wet in gaming overall.  Bardic Knowledge rolls gets her involved in the world and helps her immerse herself into what the heck is going on.  She can "stance dance" with songs, be a back-up healer if needed and pepper the heck out of enemies from a distance.

And she's been perfect as our diplomat.  Which is great, because the few times I've attempted it before she joined the group, my d20 decided to go on strike.  And so did the cleric's....

Willvr, I said skillmonkey, not trapfinding. Trapfinding is one part of the skillmonkey role, but it is not the only part. The role also covers social skills, stealth skills, and so on.

Yes, but, if you don't have a trapfinder in DnD, you're going to be in strife.

It is actually quite annoying that they're said to be the perfect skill monkeys, but rogues get more skill points, but that's something else.

Rogues are also perfect skillmonkeys. As for trapfinding, that depends on what kind of game you're in. There are published modules, for instance, with little in the way of traps, for various reasons. Speaker in Dreams focuses more on the Weird Drek, for instance, while the Savage Tide adventure path takes place mostly in the ocean or a jungle. On the other hand, if you're venturing into Castle Ravenloft, you'll definitely want someone who can find traps.

To the best of my recollection (granted, it's been close to three decades since I looked), 'bard' was not actually a character class in the 1st edition rules.  I think there were enough various spells that a player could make a vaguely bard-like character, perhaps, but having it become a bard, as the class is understood now, would have involved truckloads of house-rules and hand-waving on the GMs part.

Arguably, the 1st edition 'bard' was the first prestige class. YOu had to take levels of fighter, thief before finally druid (I think.) But when you went to druid you were actually levelling as a bard. Or something like that. But they were -nothing- like later versions of the bard. From people who did play it, they said that if you could actually manage to do it, they could be amongst the most powerful characters.

In reply to facemaker329 (msg # 92):

Actually, there was an official "bard" in first edition.  But as willvr states, it was more like one of the first prestige classes of D&D.

In other words, you can't start as a bard.  Instead, you have to dual class in fighter and thief (at least five levels each), have minimum prerequisite skills, and then switch to bard (which was essentially a druid loremaster that put you on a druid track while keeping fighter and thief skills).

It's a rare species in 1st edition....

In reply to Heath (msg # 94):

And if you finally managed all those levels in other classes, IIRC you would end up playing a very underpowered character compared to the others who have been levelling in one class all that time.

That hasn't really been my experience, not with 1st edition anyway.  2nd edition and on, I think that may be true.  But I don't think 1st edition really increased power over levels as much (or as disparately) as 2nd edition and later.

I think that's largely a product of giving so many options that characters would specialize and choose things to boost power within a specialty, whereas 1st edition was more of a lockstep tradition that would empower dual classing more--in fact, as an alternative to the specialization in later additions.

In reply to Heath (msg # 96):

Once you got to your Bard levels the Experience Chart was very forgiving too.  In short order you'd catch up to and then bypass other Classes in overall level.

Exactly.  It's like accelerated power ups, which some people like, as opposed to waiting several game sessions to advance your character any.

I just remember trying to work through the levels of other classes needed.  None of us ever made it.  For one adventure that required a bard, I created an NPC for the party.

I have no clue why people associate bards with lute hippies. My bard wore an iron mask and spiked armor and blasted foes to gib with his sick riffs, rose the dead with his unhallowing wails and kept all that he had rocked.

In reply to Andrew Wilson (msg # 100):

As for singing a song in six seconds mentioned earlier, how many of us really know all the words to songs anyway? Let's say we're all fighters who've spent our time studying the art of the blade and not the lyrics of well known tunes. We'd recognize certain parts of a song, perhaps the chorus or such. Now let's say that we're about to go into a fight, or we need to rally once the battle has engaged. From somewhere to our flank or rear comes the voice of our bard, "My, my, my, I'm once bitten twice shy, baby!" or perhaps "Ex-it light! Enter ni-ight!" or maybe "Goin' out in blaze of glory!"...

Those are just a few "riffs" a rockin' bard might sing in six seconds or less that would conjure an image in the heads of a fighter and inspire him to kick some goblin booty! ;-)

I do not hate bards. I hate how certain interpretations of rules make them appear to be useless. I think they have their place, and can add a lot of flavor to a campaign if handled by the right player and GM, each of which should have some creativity. What if every character in a party was a bard? A troupe for hire? True none of them would be an expert at anything, but would be 'good-enough' at most things to get by.

I also liked how the 1e bards were handled as a sort of prestige class. That makes for a believable IC conversation:

"You can pick locks and speak Old Gnomish? I thought you were a mercenary. Where did you learn all that stuff?"

"Ah, well I grew up as an alley rat on the streets, but was later taken in by a kind forest druid who saw some promise in me. But that was all before the war broke out and I needed to take up the sword and defend the Barony. Since I took an arrow to the knee, I've slowed down a little, ya know, realized my limits. I enjoy music more now, and reading..."

"What? You can read too?"

Or in newer editions, role-playing the bard as a veteran who's had a lot of life's lessons to forge him into the Jack-of-all-trades.

I'm sort of that way in real life. I'm not the best builder, I'm not the best welder, I'm not the best at running equipment, I'm not the best computer technician, I'm not the best animal doctor, etc. but I can do all of those well enough to get the job.

I think the Jack-of-all-trades is a realistic (heh.) class, and a necessary class, and that's why I don't hate bards.

Oh, and Andrew Wilson: Rock on brother! ;-)

Andrew, I do not suppose you called your character Sir Sabbath the Black? ;)

No lol, he only went by his show name "The Blackest Jack"

In reply to DeeYin (msg # 102):

Lol! Married to the Maiden of Iron!

Marriage was one of those forbidden words he refused to utter, lest it was to mock it and its ideology :P

"Why buy the cow, When I get the milk for free?"

The more common Bardic Music abilities do not require a concentration check to start or maintain.  Inspire Courage (the most common ability in my experience), for example, requires a standard action to initiate (as they all do) but then leaves the Bard free to do pretty much anything in the rounds thereafter, including combat.  Fascinate (thus also Suggestion and Mass Suggestion), Inspire Competence, and Song of Freedom are the only ones that require concentration checks.  Inspire Courage, Countersong, Inspire Greatness, Inspire Heroics do not.

I know the rules are only guidelines, but there's a huge difference between "they suck because the book says xxx" and "they such because my houserule says xxx".  If it's the latter then it's your right to make Bards ineffective, but if it's the former then you've misinterpreted the book and you're making Bards make concentration checks when they should not.

But enough of those rules.. err, guidelines.

What's better than being a warrior fighting alongside another warrior who's trying to out-shine you?  Fighting alongside a semi-warrior who makes you a better warrior, I say!  (c;  I want to be that unique snowflake, darnit!

Love bards when they're played by people who want to contribute positively to the campaign.  My only issue is when people want to play them as some foppish fool, but that's probably more a beef with the player than the character or their class.

Perhaps I'm not alone and that's where umbrage for others stem from -- how people interpret and play Bards.  I've never really understood people who play adventurers-come-heroes who are clearly neither.

My bard doesn't even sing. Instead uses perform oratory and is noble leader that says awesomely inspiring things, but of course, as a noble, has a well rounded education in many topics including combat and magic.

Cool bards use totem spears as weapons/wind instrument. ;)

In reply to DarkLightHitomi (msg # 107):

See their is more to the Perform Skill than musical instruments. A Bard could also be that wisecracking buddy by the use of Perform- Comedy, winning kings and commoners over alike with a witty one-liner. Even distracting opponents in a melee with his constant banter.