Do We Need A Bard Class?

[Leopold]

For core? no.

For a splatbook add-on? Sure.


Bard was one of the most useless classes that existed. In all my times I've seen it done 2 or 3 and mostly it was "I cast Buffing Song A!" <player goes and does something else for the rest of the fight>

Cute idea, but you can roll it into another class more effectively and make it interesting rather than some niche class.

 

[mach1.9pants]

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.

I think WotC agrees with you. The bard hasn't found its niche so is not in the PHB. But I hope they make a bard class which is really different from all other classes with no spells but LOTS of music powers that make it stand out

 

[The Human Target]

Do we need a class that buffs people with music? No.

Do we need a class that has a little of everything (fighting, skills, magic, healing)? Yeah, we kinda do.

I just wish it was a lot more generic than the bard. Maybe something like the Thieves' World Adept.

 

[Aeolius]

I've ben considering a bard build that would gain abilities not unlike the warlock, though by means of channeling a "Universal Song". Perhaps as a revival of Loom .

 

[Cmarco]

The bard has been a D&D staple for a long time. I have always enjoyed playing them. I anticipate their arrival in 4e will be awesome. I could see a number of powers centered around music... different "dirge", "ballad", "melody" powers could be really cool... perhaps they could be modified by a perform check or something? I think that the 4e bard would really be the version of the bard which comes into the limelight.

Sounds like fun.

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

If we don't need a bard then....

We don't need a rogue either - just a fighter with a high intelligence and dexterity who specializes in a lot of skills.

Oh, we don't need a monk either, just a fighter who specializes in using his body as a weapon (or staffs, kama's blah blah blah)

We wouldn't need Wizards or Clerics, and therefore no distinguishing between Arcane and Divine magic... you can see the logical progression of where this is going right?

Yes we need the Bard class, just like we need the other classes. Why? To give options and diversity to the game. The more options with specialized gifts/abilities creates a more pleasurable plethora of choices so more people can have more diverse characters, instead of 2 different characters that specialize in different modes of their basic category.

But I suppose that include the desire for diversity.

 

[MaelStorm]

There will be a Bard class.

They will be Leaders.
Their Talents will be inborn or learned from Bardic Colleges.
There will be four type of Bardic Traditions: Song, Painting, Dance, and Oratory.
They should start with History and Lore skills.
They will have easy access in most societies.

They will boost and inspire their allies, and they will fool or trick their opponents, through illusory magic and mental trickery. Bard can make their foes turn on themselves.

It is hinted that it will be through an independent relationship through otherworldly patrons.
So a Divine Power source, but it is unclear as they also mention Magic and Psi Powers.

But musical instruments as implement is not a bad idea, maybe their will be cloaks and staffs. Maybe boots that boost their Dancing Maneuvers!

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

If we don't need a bard then....

Double-Posted by mistake. :\

 

[Ahwe Yahzhe]

...of COURSE we need a Bard class!

...because we WANT a bard class. That's it. If anyone remembers the painful process in the appendix of the 1E PHB, just think how many of us were willing to create characters with those ridiculous cross-class requirements just so we could play one. Never mind if they were playable or not, we all have images of Taleisin or viking skalds in our brains that had to get out.

Fast-forward to 2E, and you've got bards as a rogue class with spells swapped in for backstab and thief skills... We still played them, as nerfed as they were. (My favorite was the Gallant kit, where your character was allowed to stay alive, no matter how brutally he had just been killed, just long enough to make a final 'death speech.' It was so much fun when my Gallant died, torturing my fellow players with the Worst Poem Ever Written...)

Things got a little better in 3.5E, when the bard became the "best fifth party member." But still got laughed at by the other classes, especially Clerics and Druids.

With the whole roles / power sources thing, regardless of whether WotC isn't concerned about "filling out the matrix," you have a clear role for the Bard as an Arcane Leader. If yet another overhaul of the class is required, so be it.

 

[The Shadow]

It is hinted that it will be through an independent relationship through otherworldly patrons.
So a Divine Power source, but it is unclear as they also mention Magic and Psi Powers.

I dunno. "Independent relationship with otherworldly patrons" sounds very similar to a warlock pact to me.

And... painting? Really? *boggle* Dancing and Oratory do make a degree of sense, though.

We don't need a rogue either - just a fighter with a high intelligence and dexterity who specializes in a lot of skills.

Oh come now. This is getting a little silly. The rogue has a well-defined niche. The bard, as witnessed by its constant changes between editions, has never found one.

Oh, we don't need a monk either, just a fighter who specializes in using his body as a weapon (or staffs, kama's blah blah blah)

Actually, I agree, so long as psionic-like powers aren't at issue.

We wouldn't need Wizards or Clerics, and therefore no distinguishing between Arcane and Divine magic... you can see the logical progression of where this is going right?

Nope, I don't see how this line of thought follows from what I said at all. I said that existing mechanics could be used in a way to do everything that the bard currently does, with no loss of flavor that I can yet see. The same cannot be said for wizards and clerics. I mean, sure, you *could* dump their powers into one class - and for some settings it might even be a good idea - you'd mostly lose more than you would gain.