How do you envision bards?

[Desdichado]

Erik Mona:
I think I'd rather eliminate the class from all of my campaigns altogether. Is the Bard a jack of all trades, or a musical magician?

Turns out I just don't care. He's fired from all my campaigns forever. Sorry, Bard.

LOL, I agree with Erik Mona, except that there's no reason to: no one in my group has ever wanted to play a bard.

I could see one using the new variant bard from The Book of Eldritch Might II or just giving a rogue (or whomever) ranks in Perform, and then taking the Gleeman prestige class from The Wheel of Time Roleplaying Game. Even then, I don't know who would want to do so, though.

 

[Paka]

Role Playing Feats

Most of the Feats are for hitting things harder or more accurately or not getting hit.

This is a bummer for the Bard in our party.

We came up with a feat based on an Advantage in Ars Magica.

Well-Travelled means that you have a chance of knowing someone in whatever port we come to. Based on a DM's roll on a table it could be a mild aquaintence or it could be your brother.

This allows the Bard the possiblity of shmoozing wherever the party goes (within reason).

No doubt, the Bard bites in combat but I think they make up for it in other areas. I've heard good things about Monte's bard, though and would like to take a gander at it.

 

[Psion]

I tell you what I don't think a bard should be:

A celtic spellsinger.

But thats what both S&S and Monte's bard both seem to want to peg it as.

To me, I would prefer the bard to be more general in nature and shed some of its celtic overtones. I would like to see a bard be able to be Skalds or Tribal Chanters. I would like them to be Loremasters for their people who can use the perform skills in different ways.

Where I to make a variant bard (I may yet do this) I would rework the perform skills so it could do different things and not be so ... celtic.

 

[KidCthulhu]

Actors are called upon to master a variety of unrelated skills in order to properly simulate these actions as part of a convincing performance. Musicians travel to the ends of the earth seeking new sounds and old songs. Historians and archeologist risk death in some of the most troubled areas of the world just to reach the original documents, or lost city of their dreams.

That is the Bard.

Think of them as actors without a fixed stage, musicians without a gig and historians without a university. They enjoy life a little too much to contain themselves to static study. Bards are thinkers with wanderlust, driven to answer the question just because it's been posed.

They aren't for everyone, that I'll admit. And I do wish they had more "boom" spells on their list. But they are one of the best designed classes in 3E, and my very favorite to play.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I played only one bard, but I really liked him.

A Bard is somewhat ambivalent - in combat, he will stay in the background (and work from there, with Bardic Music and well placed spells).
But in town/city, he will shine. There he can use all his charisma to make friends, gather information, buy and sell equipment.
But he is not the only one to shine - every adventure group having a bard with them will become famous for their great efforts and the terrifying threats they defeated. Simply, because the bard comes into town and will tell some stories. These stories are not about him, but about his comrades. (No one cares about you, if you steadily claim to be a great fighter or spell caster. But if you report about another person... )

Mustrum Ridcully

PS: I like all classes in the Core Rulebooks. Even those who are considered "shafted".

 

[Desdichado]

I didn't recall thinking that Monte's Bard was particularly celtic. What about it didn't you like?

 

[Darklone]

Hmmm

Bards useless in combat? Do a little multiclassing and be inventive. Or do the old whip disarm tricks. Your DM will love you!

 

[Apok]

I think the problem with the Bard is that the general concept can cover so much ground in terms of character ideas. What qualifies as a "Bard" ?

A celtic-style warrior-poet or spellsinger
A viking Skald
An actor
A travelling minstrel or troubador
A master of riddles
A master of rhetoric
An advisor to kings and emperors

All of these concepts fit what one might consider a Bard-like class, but they are also very different. The PHB Bard lacks focus because the creators of 3rd edition wanted people to be able to accommodate all of these types of characters into the Bard class with a little imagination. Sadly, it didn't work out so well. The lack of focused Bard PrC's makes it even worse.

Bards need to move beyond the "jack-of-all-trades" concept and into a more focused arena. Personally, my vision of a Bard is a powerfull spellcaster who uses songs and melodies rather than arcane formulae to work his magic. From what I understand, Monte Cook's alt.Bard from BoEMII fits this description fairly closely.

So, what do we need? More & Better Bard PrC's that can focus the talents of the Bard. S&S didn't do this, so I'm holding out hope for other books (Quintessential Bard, perhaps?).

 

[KidCthulhu]

I agree that a player can choose to make their bard one of many things. But I disagree that this makes the bard broken. There are a lot of ways to be a bard. But you could say the same thing of a fighter (military type, bad tempered brawler, hired sword, disciplined warrior, etc, etc.) or a cleric (crusader, evangelist, timid church mouse, truth seeker, healer, zealot), and no one calls those classes unfocused.

To nail down the bard to being "a celtic spellsinger" or "a skald" would be to lose the very thing that makes the bard class so great, its flexibility.

Sure, each player needs to think about who their bard is, and which of the many things that a bard can do that they want to focus on. But that doesn't make the bard class bad, in fact it makes it richer.

The bard is a microcosm of 3E; providing a variety of ways to play with rules to support all of them.

 

[Apok]

Oh, I agree completely that the Bard's versatility is a really neat idea. However, not everybody is going to want to play the Bard as such a character. I'm not saying that the bard must be nailed down into an specific arechtype, only that the option should be there for those who want it. True, you could roleplay a Bard as being any one of these archetypes, but anyone can roleplay any class as anything (well, just about). My concern is the "crunchy bits," if you will. What differentiates a Skald type Bard from a Riddlemaster? Sure, your skill and spell selections might be a bit different and they would be rp'd differently, but you'd still be fairly similiar mechanics-wise.

The great thing about Fighters is that their large number of feats gives them a great deal of customizability. A Bard's abilities are more static; This is what you get, Period. They don't get very many feats to work with and there are few really good feats that help to focus a Bard's talents. Spell selection helps diversify Bards somewhat, but their spell selection is rather limited in it's scope. This is why I am a major advocate for Bard PrC's. If a player wants to play the standard Jack Bard, wonderfull. However, I am in favor of giving people more leeway in customizing thier Bards AND giving them tangible mechanical benefits to represent their chosen focus, at the cost of other abilities. Sounds just like a PrC, doesn't it?

But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.