Looks like I've got time for one more reply before bed after all (since the next two nights are gaming nights, I'll most likely not have time to post again until Saturday).
Crying ""Powergamer" and "Whiner" to Those Who Prefer 3.0 Perform: You mistake me, sir (although I admit I might have gotten a tad carried away--quite hot here, and my A/C unit won't arrive for a few days yet). There are many people who have posted good arguments in favor of the 3.0 system (simplicity of play preferred to realism being the best one, although it does rub me the wrong way, given my profession), and if it seemed I was including them in the "whining powergamer" category, my apologies. I was chiefly directing that description to those who are complaining because they are forced to choose between an uber-do-it-all bard (an archetype which I feel has no basis in most rpgs, history, or literature) and using the extra skill points on mechanically-useful skills.
2E Proficiencies: Some were indeed more useful than others, and the system was generally a mess (and consistency of using it varied greatly from DM to DM). That said, the following proficiencies were "useful" (providing mechanically-defined advantages as opposed to pure roleplaying) and easily-accessible to bards: Direction Sense, Languages (Modern), Riding (Airborne), Riding (Land-based), Rope Use, Swimming, Blind-fighting (costs 2 slots), Disguise, Forgery, Juggling (allowed you to catch thrown weapons), Set Snares, Tightrope Walking, Tumbling, Armorer (2 slots), Bowyer/Fletcher, Endurance (2 slots), Hunting, Running, Survival (2 slots), Tracking (2 slots), Weaponsmithing (3 slots), Reading/Writing. 2E non-weapon proficiencies included both 3E feats and 3E skills, and you got way fewer "points" to spend on them. Even if a 3.5 bard chooses to spend an extra point or two on Perform to master more performance types, he'll still end up with many more skills than he'd have in 2E (who, if you were playing with a DM who did follow the NWP rules as written, was indeed hindered).
2E Musical Instruments: Oops, the number of instruments provided by this NWP (non-weapon proficiency) was on my comparison notes, but didn't make my post. Putting another slot in this gave you a measly two specific instruments. Don't have Complete Bard's easily-accessible (and don't feel like digging up and reinstalling Core Rules 2.0), so I can't say what it may or may not have done.
Bard Fighting: Ah, I see, you're comparing class special abilities, as opposed to core abilities such as BAB, skill points, spellcasting, etc. Yes, the bard, to be effective, must use one of his six skill points on Perform. That still leaves him five points and a list of class skills greater than any other class but the rogue. From a purely skill-based perspective, the rogue is the 3/3.5E jack-of-all-trades (which the rogue, and not the bard, was designed to be). From an all-around perspective, the bard, with his decent combat capabilities, spellcasting abilities (the key aspect that the rogue lacks), and skill choices, is the general jack-of-all-trades. And don't forget the corollary of the phrase: "jack of all trades, master of none." A bard (or a rogue) can be a true jack of all trades by spreading his skill points among all his class skills, and by so doing will certainly be master of none of them. The problem I see is that too many people wish to be jack-of-all-trades, as well as master of all (which is the attitude I'm describing when I refer to powergaming). Me, I'd say the bard's spellcasting ability and bardic powers are worth three skill points (counting the obligatory Perform point as a "lost" point) and sneak attack.
Final Thought About Required Perform Ranks: I can certainly understand Chalcedony's point about the bard being required to use one of his skill points to use one of his chief class functions--a decent houserule would be to give the bard maximum rank in a category of Perform as a bonus class feature. However, considering the alternatives, tying bardic abilities in to both bard level and ranks in Perform is probably the most elegant solution to the situation. Otherwise you end up with: a first-level bard/high-level whatever with full access to bardic abilities (tying them only to Perform and not to level, allowing other characters to gain the abilities by taking ranks in Perform along with a qualifying level of bard); a high-level bard who can do the most amazing things with his music, although he can barely carry a tune (tying the abilities only to bard level, permitting the bard to get away with a single measly skill point in Perform, if indeed that point is even required); a campaign world where nobody but bards can sing or otherwise perform (making Perform only available to bard, and tying his abilities to Perform); or more than one mechanic to cover the same thing--making music (creating one mechanic to govern bardic music and another to govern general musical abilities).
And Finally....: Good night all. Given how this thread exploded beyond what I imagined when I first saw and posted to it, I have no doubt it'll still be going strong on Saturday, so I'll see you then.
The bard gets better through the hours of practice he puts in while walking down the road, in camp, in town, or any other non-stressful situation where he can focus on developing his talents--all of this represented by spending skill points.
