Do We Need A Bard Class?

[The Shadow]

The thought struck me this morning that you could create a new type of arcane implement: the musical instrument. And of course one could create a new wizard tradition, "Bardic Music", that uses such an implement. (It gives bonuses to illusions, enchantments, sonic stuff, and so on.)

Then a bard simply becomes a wizard, or perhaps a warlock with a Fey pact, who dips a bit into Warlord for the inspirational stuff. Or, of course, the opposite, if you want a somewhat tougher and less magical bard. Once the Enchanter, Illusionist, and maybe Druid come out, those might work even better, but it seems quite workable right now.

What does a bard class add that this setup doesn't do? It would have to have a fair bit of value-added, because I'm seeing this combo as doing a 3e bard better than 3e did! If you insist on the "skill-monkey" aspect of the 3e bard (which I never really understood), just add Rogue goodies to taste.

I'd just as soon cut down on the number of base classes, restricting them to things that can't be readily built with existing options.

Then again, I would've been happy building paladins as Fighter/Clerics.

 

[Crothian]

Of course we need the bard. I'd prefer to lose the Wizard and have the just be a Bard that really studies magic.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't think we need any classes except fighters and wizards.

It's called swords & sorcery, not swords & sermons & sneaking & songs & sorcery.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm detecting a soupcon of sarcasm here. Is there anything inherently wrong with what I said?

 

[WhatGravitas]

Then again, I would've been happy building paladins as Fighter/Clerics.

True, same here. Bards in 3E are for me clerics venerating the ideal of music and aesthetics, using a musical instrument as holy symbol. Frighteningly, they do their job pretty well.

But while I *loathe* the bard, it's a D&D staple... and people like base classes.

Cheers, LT.

 

[Xethreau]

I think that a musical instrument might be nice for a Wizard, but that would be no replacement for a bard, IMO. A Rogue/Warlord/Wizard might suffice, but I doubt it.

 

[Flynn]

If you take all the powers that a bard gets, strip off the musical aspect and look at the game effects alone, you pretty much have the foundation for a leader with moderate arcane abilities. Game mechanically, we shouldn't need a Bard, per se. An arcane leader or a multi-classed leader/arcanist can cover the same ground.

That being said, there's sometimes good flavor in keeping the bard, so long as the setting is built to support it.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Xethreau]

I don't think we need any classes except fighters and wizards.

It's called swords & sorcery, not swords & sermons & sneaking & songs & sorcery.

Its actualy called Dungeons and Dragons, but we have Dieties and Demigods too.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm detecting a soupcon of sarcasm here.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

 

[Voss]

To answer your question, not really. D&D has never done the bard well, and its never really been more than a smattering of random abilities with a name that tries and fails to evoke the feel of a specific culture.

Like a lot of culturally specific concepts, it doesn't need a class- you can just take a more general class and class yourself a bard, or ninja, or samurai, or druid, or shaman or whatever. Including even the monk (though it isn't quite as culturally specific), actually, which would end a lot of stupid arguments. Just allow some sort of ki power source and make allow them to make unarmed fighting not suck.