Do We Need A Bard Class?

[The Shadow]

...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.

I don't think anyone, including me, has said you can't and shouldn't play a bard *concept*. I'm only wondering if we need a *base class* for it. If you were willing to go through the ridiculous 1e hoops to play one, what's wrong with a splash of multiclassing to accomplish what you want?

 

[MaelStorm]

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

It is all taken from Races and Class. Plus have you look at the ENworld Unofficial 4E Info Page?

EDIT: Then why Warlock and Bards have separate sections in the R&C books?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Bards in 3E may be horribly underpowered, useless, ineffective, and without a clear niche (Jack of all Trades but Failure in all isn't a niche). But if you can ignore that, Bards are plain fun. (It' hard to ignore, I know. That's why they are so rarely played, even by those that like them. Which would include me. One of my first D&D 3.0 characters was a Elven Bard. And I have seen three or so played by other players, and each of them was played well, interesting and enjoyable for the whole group...)

Making them Arcane Leaders in 4E should fix its problems from previous editions (or at least 3e). I don't know if that will make it universally, thematically correct for all times, but it will be a step upwards...

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I don't know exactly what mechanics I want implemented to make it happen, but I know what I want the bard to do in my game. The bard:

• Learns new songs from sheet music, from other bards he meets in taverns, and from improvisation. His songs should be rather flexible, so it's more akin to Ars Magicka's on-the-fly casting system. The bard combines, say, three elements together to make an appropriate effect for the particular problem. I'd like the form [Genre] of [Effect] in [Key]. [Genre] describes the silo of the effect, [Effect] is a specific subset, and [Key] determines its power level. Examples: Dirge of Tears in A# minor clouds enemies' eyes with tears, giving them a -1 to ranged attacks. Rondo of Exultation in G major grants all allies a +3 bonus to hit against bloodied foes. One day I will house rule up an entire subsystem based on this.
• Chronicles the party's adventures, and spreads word of their deeds. This grants the party a bonus to Charisma-based checks in that area for a number of days equal to the bard's level.
• Inspires the party when the chips are down. Not particularly when the chips are a balanced encounter for the party's level, but when the fan is already stinky and splattered, the bard brings everyone around. Sounds like a Leader to me.
• Shmoozes his way into the noble court. He can disguise the party, he can smooth-talk his way past the guards, he can win the princess' heart to get close to the king, and he can do it all with a dashing, pencil-thin mustache. Last part not optional.
• Beguiles, misdirects, dodges and darts about the battlefield. He feints, he ripostes, he parries. He buckles his swash. He uses a rapier, shortbow, or light pistol. He does not use a whip, for the love of Pelor.
• Recharges per-day abilities by going to the tavern, taking in a play, or generally going out on the town. Not by sleeping. There's an indie game, The Shadows of Yesterday, that uses this mechanic, and the bard needs it. More than any other character, the bard is an extension of civilization, and this would make that distinction clear.
• Knows all the legends and tales of the land. If you want to know how to kill a dragon, you don't ask the party wizard, you seek out the tales told in alehouses by ribald bards.
• Barely has a penny to his name at any given time. Oh, he's got a warehouse full of magical trinkets, sure--but he still has to sing for his supper.

I defy you to do that with a multi-class rogue/wizard/warlord/fighter/swordmage/frabbledybloo. And if the 4e bard doesn't do that, I'll make a new one that does.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think anyone, including me, has said you can't and shouldn't play a bard *concept*. I'm only wondering if we need a *base class* for it. If you were willing to go through the ridiculous 1e hoops to play one, what's wrong with a splash of multiclassing to accomplish what you want?

Even if I sometimes fall prey to it myself, we should refrain from using the fact that certain things were hard to do in earlier editions to explain why it's okay to do so in later editions.

That said, since multiclassing is actually a mechanic that is supposed to create characters mixing abilities, it might be okay to use it. But then, since the Bard or Kit or whatever in a few editions of D&D, there might be something to him that makes it reasonable to try creating a class for him.

 

[Archangel_Zer0]

[*]Shmoozes his way into the noble court. He can disguise the party, he can smooth-talk his way past the guards, he can win the princess' heart to get close to the king, and he can do it all with a dashing, pencil-thin mustache. Last part not optional.
[*]Beguiles, misdirects, dodges and darts about the battlefield. He feints, he ripostes, he parries. He buckles his swash. He uses a rapier, shortbow, or light pistol. He does not use a whip, for the love of Pelor.

I lol'ed on that one... and strangely enough, I can agree with this style I'm definitely diggin' it. However, if this has to be homebrew rules, or optional rules to the Leader class (after all, it never states that the Leader absolutely HAS to be the leader of the group) I'd be up for it.

Besides, I have a Bard that I've been dying to recreate... half-copper dragon (though that might not be an option, but no solids on that rumor yet)

Peace, Love, and Bloodstains,
~ Me.

PS - Yeah, I agree with Ridcully, Bards are just fun to play from time to time.

 

[vazanar]

I don't think anyone, including me, has said you can't and shouldn't play a bard *concept*. I'm only wondering if we need a *base class* for it. If you were willing to go through the ridiculous 1e hoops to play one, what's wrong with a splash of multiclassing to accomplish what you want?

Because with the 4e concept of class powers the Bard can be seperated from the wizard. Maybe music abilities can be everything for the class not just lower level spells. It seems in 4e the Bard will be a mix of the Warlock and Warlord. A song magic based leader. Have its own unique abilities instead of half in half of two classes that dont mix.

 

[Mistwell]

Bards are leaders, and classes which use implements for the most part do not seem to be leaders. So yes, I think we need a bard, or at least a leader class that can use implements, and use rituals.

 

[devoblue]

I'd actually prefer a generalist / jack-of-all-trades class that didn't necessarily have a musical flavor. Such a class wouldn't necessarily be useful in larger parties full of specialists, but would certainly have a place in 1-2 player games.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Bards are leaders, and classes which use implements for the most part do not seem to be leaders. So yes, I think we need a bard, or at least a leader class that can use implements, and use rituals.

How so? Clerics undoubtedly still carry around holy symbols, and we've seen nothing to suggest clerics won't have access to rituals. I imagine they'll still be able to do the equivalent of Planar Ally, for instance.