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."