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.