How do YOU play a bard?
- Thread starter der_kluge
- Start date
I love playing bards. The key to them, mechanically speaking, is to always play across the strengths of your opponents. Up against someone who is a melee monster? Keep back and hit them with Glitterdust, Grease, Sound Burst etc. Up against a spell caster? Close with them and keep them needing to cast defensively.
My elven bard had a 20 Dex (I made his best stat Dex, not Cha) and took Weapon Finesse at 3rd level. Suddenly his Hit Bonus was up in the same league as the fighters in the group, even if he only did 1d6 damage per hit. Plus, he took Combat Expertise so he could tumble behind the enemy lines and give flanking bonuses to fellow combatants. And the Inspire Courage ability always seemed to help in any tough combat. We came up against a Gibbering Mouther once and after we experienced it's confusion ability (and the party fighters nearly killed one of the other group members) I kicked in with the Countersong ability and neutralized it.
My bard was based on Padeur from the Bard's Tales books. This is mandatory reading for any one wanting to play a bard IMO. My bard always used poems to inspire the group - heroic tales of daring do versus overwhelming odds.
I see the game as built up of several different 'modules' of character ability. Fighting, combat spells, healing, stealth, character interaction. The bard is rarely likely to be the best in any of these areas (with the possible exception of interaction, though a Sorceror with Charm Person is hard to beat) but they can be second best at everything. What ever the party is doing, a well rounded bard can contribute.
You never have to sit an encounter out
Dan
My elven bard had a 20 Dex (I made his best stat Dex, not Cha) and took Weapon Finesse at 3rd level. Suddenly his Hit Bonus was up in the same league as the fighters in the group, even if he only did 1d6 damage per hit. Plus, he took Combat Expertise so he could tumble behind the enemy lines and give flanking bonuses to fellow combatants. And the Inspire Courage ability always seemed to help in any tough combat. We came up against a Gibbering Mouther once and after we experienced it's confusion ability (and the party fighters nearly killed one of the other group members) I kicked in with the Countersong ability and neutralized it.
My bard was based on Padeur from the Bard's Tales books. This is mandatory reading for any one wanting to play a bard IMO. My bard always used poems to inspire the group - heroic tales of daring do versus overwhelming odds.
I see the game as built up of several different 'modules' of character ability. Fighting, combat spells, healing, stealth, character interaction. The bard is rarely likely to be the best in any of these areas (with the possible exception of interaction, though a Sorceror with Charm Person is hard to beat) but they can be second best at everything. What ever the party is doing, a well rounded bard can contribute.
You never have to sit an encounter out
Dan
Zad
First Post
I have a bard in one of our campaigns (RttToEE) and I find it...
um...
challenging.
A bard has a lot of unusual traits, and it makes it challenging for me to play. For one thing I have to operate very differently than usual - I'm in a support role now, and I'm often idle or nearly idle in combat. That's something I personally have difficulty with.
Also you really need to think differently. You have to think like a bard - you're a skills-based character. You need to use your skills to work your way out of things. I will admit I've had a few great moments.
The party is trying to batter its way through a secret door in the temple. We're making way too much noise. A patrol of gnolls comes down the hall.
A normal reaction might be to set up to fight them, and that's fine. But it's not bard-ly.
Rather than hide or set up to pounce, I yell at the group loudly and stand very obviously. The gnolls approach warrily, at which point I begin talking to them, in gnollish of course, about how we're going to set up a little "surprise" for the rival temple next door.
The gnoll scans me, looking for the insignia of the temple. Of course I notice this. I pull out the approrpiate insignia (the former user won't miss it) and show it to him, mentioning of course you wouldn't want to display it openly - then the rival temple would know who attacked them.
To me, that was a bard done right. Unfortunately I've had a lot more moments where I felt lost, inept, or realized the right thing to do far too late to put it into play.
It's a tricky role, and will be a different experience for everyone depending on their talents and natural inclinations at problem solving.
um...
challenging.
A bard has a lot of unusual traits, and it makes it challenging for me to play. For one thing I have to operate very differently than usual - I'm in a support role now, and I'm often idle or nearly idle in combat. That's something I personally have difficulty with.
Also you really need to think differently. You have to think like a bard - you're a skills-based character. You need to use your skills to work your way out of things. I will admit I've had a few great moments.
The party is trying to batter its way through a secret door in the temple. We're making way too much noise. A patrol of gnolls comes down the hall.
A normal reaction might be to set up to fight them, and that's fine. But it's not bard-ly.
Rather than hide or set up to pounce, I yell at the group loudly and stand very obviously. The gnolls approach warrily, at which point I begin talking to them, in gnollish of course, about how we're going to set up a little "surprise" for the rival temple next door.
The gnoll scans me, looking for the insignia of the temple. Of course I notice this. I pull out the approrpiate insignia (the former user won't miss it) and show it to him, mentioning of course you wouldn't want to display it openly - then the rival temple would know who attacked them.
To me, that was a bard done right. Unfortunately I've had a lot more moments where I felt lost, inept, or realized the right thing to do far too late to put it into play.
It's a tricky role, and will be a different experience for everyone depending on their talents and natural inclinations at problem solving.
WayneLigon
Adventurer
My first 3E character was a Bard; I'm not a very extroverted person IRL and I certainly don't steer conversations but I think I did a pretty good job. Played him for about 18 months, I think, until we discontinued the campaign when we were all about 17th level.
Ashrem was a lot of things. He was the classic 'support guy'. He was the back-up healer and later on the low-level undead killer (once he had healing circle). He was the second sneakiest person in the party, so he was always up front, scouting. He was never hesitant to get in and mix it up in melee, using Tumble and his rapier to great effect to set up flanking situations for the rogue or to distract that monster menacing the wizard. Once he had Improved Critical and Spring Attack, he was up there fighting demons and giants. Yeah, he died a couple times, but so did others.
Never thought it was an odd thing to sing in combat; he's doing the same thing for the first couple rounds as the wizard who hangs back and throws magic missle or sleep. For Inspire Courage, usually he'd sing one of five or six selections from some heroic ballad, chant from an inspiring poem, or do something from one of the religious epics. Sometimes it was a whistling tune, sometimes an inspiring story, one or two times a grim comedy skit.
He was also the guy that brokered all the deals to sell what stuff we'd found; he knew where the best merchants were, who was a cheat and who was honest, and he could identify some of the wierder things that actually had a history to them. More than once, we'd be in the middle of some underground complex .. .people dreaded to hear him say 'Um, guys... do you have any idea where we are?' and then he'd tell them the horrific history of the place they were in. Or he'd ponder, ask a couple questions, kick over some dirt and announce that this set up reminded him of the set up in some epic poem about demon worshippers...
He was also the only guy that spoke some of the languages we needed to know. Most people picked up Draconic and the like, but he was the guy that could hit the correct notes to speak to air elementals or decipher Yaun-Ti script.
He took Leadership once he got to the point where he could Inspire Greatness. So he soon had people in every major city that could help us, listen for info, bring news, etc.
Ashrem was a lot of things. He was the classic 'support guy'. He was the back-up healer and later on the low-level undead killer (once he had healing circle). He was the second sneakiest person in the party, so he was always up front, scouting. He was never hesitant to get in and mix it up in melee, using Tumble and his rapier to great effect to set up flanking situations for the rogue or to distract that monster menacing the wizard. Once he had Improved Critical and Spring Attack, he was up there fighting demons and giants. Yeah, he died a couple times, but so did others.
Never thought it was an odd thing to sing in combat; he's doing the same thing for the first couple rounds as the wizard who hangs back and throws magic missle or sleep. For Inspire Courage, usually he'd sing one of five or six selections from some heroic ballad, chant from an inspiring poem, or do something from one of the religious epics. Sometimes it was a whistling tune, sometimes an inspiring story, one or two times a grim comedy skit.
He was also the guy that brokered all the deals to sell what stuff we'd found; he knew where the best merchants were, who was a cheat and who was honest, and he could identify some of the wierder things that actually had a history to them. More than once, we'd be in the middle of some underground complex .. .people dreaded to hear him say 'Um, guys... do you have any idea where we are?' and then he'd tell them the horrific history of the place they were in. Or he'd ponder, ask a couple questions, kick over some dirt and announce that this set up reminded him of the set up in some epic poem about demon worshippers...
He was also the only guy that spoke some of the languages we needed to know. Most people picked up Draconic and the like, but he was the guy that could hit the correct notes to speak to air elementals or decipher Yaun-Ti script.
He took Leadership once he got to the point where he could Inspire Greatness. So he soon had people in every major city that could help us, listen for info, bring news, etc.
BSF
Explorer
die_kluge said:
Player: I cast a fireball.
DM: OK, what's the DC? Roll damage.
Player: DC is 18. *rolls dice* 10d6 = 42 points of damage. Better than average!
DM: OK, the monster saves and takes half damage.
C'mon Curtis, that's just as bland. Or, it is just as exciting, depending on who is playing and if they are having fun.
Bards are not combat strong. It is arguable that they are more versatile in a group, but that really depends on the build and what else is available. Mechanically, Bards can be the weakest character in the party.
Still, I enjoy playing a bard. Over the past couple of years, I have gone to great pains to explain my bard's "magic" and abilities to the rest of the group. I have integrated this all with the DM's game world so it all meshes and explains why my magic functions differently than a sorceror's. This is fairly easy to figure out once you realize that the DM long ago lifted whole portions of the Silmarillion. With a creation story like that, it is very easy to play a bard.
Anyway, Stephen is the diplomat, and the performer. You know, the stereotype. He also has several knowledge skills. Being an organic character, he has some unusual and very sub-optimal choices. He fits the game very well, but I suspect that a number of people would tear apart his choices for skills/feats as being "wasted." Stephen also fills in a number of support roles for the group. He just keeps the wheels oiled, in a manner of speaking. Healing where necessary; a little front line support with the monk to give the Ranger (Archery based), the Druid and the Wizard time to hit something from a distance; non-combat resolution to an encounter; all sorts of little things.
We use a web forum between sessions and I have a blast writing up all sorts of elaborate stories about what he is doing in taverns, or wherever, with his music. I have the Enchiridion of Mystic Music and have additional music abilities that are not in the PHB. In short, I have a fun time playing him. It's hard to squeeze nearly three years of characterization into a single post with any meaningful information.
Anyway, to address one of your primary perceptions on the bard, it can seem silly to be singing in combat. But, there are many songs that use a cadence. This is useful, particularly in melee, because it helps keep the mind focused on swinging the sword/axe/maul/whatever. The archer finds that he is shooting his arrows just as the monk draws out the opponent just a little too far. With that cadence, fatigue doesn't set in as quickly.
Or, you can go another route and the song is so bloodthirsty that it rouses primal urges and incites your friends into a more passionate offense/defense. With the Enchiridion of Mystic Music, you can also use Bardic Music to give your allies a Barbarian-style Rage.
Or, your bard is singing in combat and is so fearless that his courage (foolishness?) inspires his allies. Perhaps your bard's faith in his/her companions is so strong that they feel it and are spurred on because of it.
It all depends on how you want to play it. Description is the key, just as it is in everything else.
der_kluge
Adventurer
Casting a fireball is typically as bland, but a fireball is a one-dimensional concept. There's no special way to do that, no variations on a theme. Everytime I cast a fireball, it is _exactly_ like every other time I have ever cast a fireball spell. There's no room for misunderstanding. There's no fuzziness, no lack of clarity.
However, as bard, if I say, I'm going to use perform(comedy) at the king's banquet, that's a different thing altogether. Because, using perform() is not the same thing everytime. It's different every time, and different actions will produce different results. That is, if I use perform(comedy) at the king's banquet, but I make fun of the king - I might wake up dead the next morning. If, however I tell some mediocre jokes, but they're about an unpopular rival kingdom, my ok jokes might be seen as riotously funny by the king, and all the kingdom might be joking about them the next day, and I become famous.
So, the actions of a bard, when he uses his words, do rely to some degree on the player playing them to fill in the missing details because it's important to the story. It's not necessary that the wizard speak draconic at the table when casting a spell, because it's not necessary. But, often times it is necessary for the Bard player to say what it is he is trying to accomplish because it's important to the story, and the outcome might vary depending on social and political factors.
This is why the bard is the toughest class to play, I think. Also why it's one of the least popular (4.4% versus 16.6% for fighter) according to a poll on here a while back.
Hmmm. Might be good to run that poll again since bards have been fixed in 3.5. I wonder if they are more popular as a result?
However, as bard, if I say, I'm going to use perform(comedy) at the king's banquet, that's a different thing altogether. Because, using perform() is not the same thing everytime. It's different every time, and different actions will produce different results. That is, if I use perform(comedy) at the king's banquet, but I make fun of the king - I might wake up dead the next morning. If, however I tell some mediocre jokes, but they're about an unpopular rival kingdom, my ok jokes might be seen as riotously funny by the king, and all the kingdom might be joking about them the next day, and I become famous.
So, the actions of a bard, when he uses his words, do rely to some degree on the player playing them to fill in the missing details because it's important to the story. It's not necessary that the wizard speak draconic at the table when casting a spell, because it's not necessary. But, often times it is necessary for the Bard player to say what it is he is trying to accomplish because it's important to the story, and the outcome might vary depending on social and political factors.
This is why the bard is the toughest class to play, I think. Also why it's one of the least popular (4.4% versus 16.6% for fighter) according to a poll on here a while back.
Hmmm. Might be good to run that poll again since bards have been fixed in 3.5. I wonder if they are more popular as a result?
Woas
First Post
Its funny how sometimes, I'll be in bed, trying to get to sleep, and I'll just think of random things... and the other night it was about the Bard class and what it really DOES. I promised myself that I would make a new thread about them and try to get a big think-tank about bards going on the boards... but lo-and-behold, what thread is on the top of the list? This one! I must have failed my Will save against your scrying or something
I've always been a little upset at the "locked" abilities of the bard class. Its true that bards are very versitle. A little bit of sneaking, a little bit of fighting, a little bit of spell casting, a large chunk of diplomacy-ing (if thats even a word) But the notion that bards HAVE to somehow, in some way make noise of some sort (either with whistling, playing an instrument or just talking/singing) to use their special abilities and what not keeps me from really getting into them and understanding them. In D&D, Bards seem to be a strange mix between the traditional Medieval Jesters and the more modern "imbedded" journalist of our time. I feel that bards should be able to inspire the party through more than just noise. Take for example painting. Instead of writing a balad of the epic battle, what if the bard instead painted the grand masterpiece of it.
Another example I was thinking about is to give bards a new spell or two. The caster would magically place everything s/he saw through their own eyes onto a magically prepped piece of paper... like a magical photograph. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... it seems to fit the bard quite well.
The other big thing is the bard songs. Like the first poster mentioned, and the two cartoons rightly pointed out, bards singing and dancing and carrying on while everyone is in a blood frenzy and everyone has tunnel vision with "kill or be killed" mind set running through them does not seem right to me. Personally, I think bard songs should work for long periods of time... not just 5 rounds after they stop singing. I think it would be interesting if bardic music was 'prepared' almost like magic is. Instead of whip'n out the flute just as the elder red dragon is betching out fire and playing a little Foreigner to help out, the bard would play the flute at the end or begining of the day during times when a wizard/cleric picks spells. The bard would pick what bardic song they would like to play out of the ones they have to effect the party for say.. 8 hours. Maybe at higher levels the bard could choose more than one bardic song effect at once, etc. Stuff like that...
Anyway.. bards just seem to me like they are To Much of everything and Not Enough of any one...
I've always been a little upset at the "locked" abilities of the bard class. Its true that bards are very versitle. A little bit of sneaking, a little bit of fighting, a little bit of spell casting, a large chunk of diplomacy-ing (if thats even a word
) But the notion that bards HAVE to somehow, in some way make noise of some sort (either with whistling, playing an instrument or just talking/singing) to use their special abilities and what not keeps me from really getting into them and understanding them. In D&D, Bards seem to be a strange mix between the traditional Medieval Jesters and the more modern "imbedded" journalist of our time. I feel that bards should be able to inspire the party through more than just noise. Take for example painting. Instead of writing a balad of the epic battle, what if the bard instead painted the grand masterpiece of it.Another example I was thinking about is to give bards a new spell or two. The caster would magically place everything s/he saw through their own eyes onto a magically prepped piece of paper... like a magical photograph. They say a picture is worth a thousand words... it seems to fit the bard quite well.
The other big thing is the bard songs. Like the first poster mentioned, and the two cartoons rightly pointed out, bards singing and dancing and carrying on while everyone is in a blood frenzy and everyone has tunnel vision with "kill or be killed" mind set running through them does not seem right to me. Personally, I think bard songs should work for long periods of time... not just 5 rounds after they stop singing. I think it would be interesting if bardic music was 'prepared' almost like magic is. Instead of whip'n out the flute just as the elder red dragon is betching out fire and playing a little Foreigner to help out, the bard would play the flute at the end or begining of the day during times when a wizard/cleric picks spells. The bard would pick what bardic song they would like to play out of the ones they have to effect the party for say.. 8 hours. Maybe at higher levels the bard could choose more than one bardic song effect at once, etc. Stuff like that...
Anyway.. bards just seem to me like they are To Much of everything and Not Enough of any one...
Last edited:
(Firstly, a personal note: When I'm fencing epee, sometimes I'll hum the theme song to 'The Flintstones' out loud or whistle 'Pop Goes the Weasel' as the bout begins. It's a cue I've developed to help clear my head, relax and focus on the task at hand. Really. And it works very well.)
I've never had a chance to develop this particular bard concept, but I've planned it out on paper: The bard who calls himself a "Paladin of Olidammara." This guy believes he's been chosen by his god to serve in the same way the classic class paladin does. Aside from that bit of title manipulation, he follows all other standard class progression guidelines in the PHB. ... A few fighter levels for combat skills and feats. Picking his bard spells to replicate a paladin's special abilities (special mount, for example, becomes the bard's phantom steed spell). A self-adherence to a particular "code of honor." -- and TA-DA! Instant bardic 'paladin.'
I've never had a chance to develop this particular bard concept, but I've planned it out on paper: The bard who calls himself a "Paladin of Olidammara." This guy believes he's been chosen by his god to serve in the same way the classic class paladin does. Aside from that bit of title manipulation, he follows all other standard class progression guidelines in the PHB. ... A few fighter levels for combat skills and feats. Picking his bard spells to replicate a paladin's special abilities (special mount, for example, becomes the bard's phantom steed spell). A self-adherence to a particular "code of honor." -- and TA-DA! Instant bardic 'paladin.'
Epametheus
First Post
I tried playing a bard once, when 3E just came out. Took her up to 18th level, though I multi-classed a bit as experimentation. I can safely say that I'll never do it again.
1) Multiclassing into another spell casting class is a bad idea.
2) Taking a prestige class that doesn't continue your casting progression is a worse idea.
3) Never, ever try to play a diplomat-type character if you yourself are naturally bad at diplomacy.
4) Charisma really is the most irrelevant stat in the entire game. No matter how high the number is, a character is only as charismatic as the player (and vice versa -- a character will effectively be every bit as charismatic as the player, no matter how low the actual score is).
5) Having a 18th level character that would be hard-pressed to hold her own in battle against a 9th level character is rather embarrassing; you'll also be nothing but a hindrance to the party in battle, unless the DM is nice and ignores you. At high levels, bards cannot protect themselves.
6) This applies to all classes, but never give a character a constitution less than 10. My Bard had a Con of 9, and that -1 per HD pretty much crippled her (she broke 20 HP around 8th level or so). Clerics and archers can get away with having a con penalty, but they're it.
7) The +1 Song isn't too bad; you're perfectly capable of fighting after you've spent a round getting it started.
8) The more warriors, the more the +1 Song is worth. Eventually, the fighters in our party were one melee fighter crit monster, 1 dragon knight, his juvenile silver dragon cohort, a fighter/rogue/lasher, an arcane archer, a paladin (my bard's cohort), the paladin's horse, and whatever the heck the real spellcasters (a cleric and a wizard) bothered to summon. With all of those people, the +1 Song was adding up to another 20-30 damage a round or so (which, sadly, was easily more damage than she could've dealt directly). With the thing actually scaling now, if my character had stayed a straight bard, it could easily have meant another 80 to 100 damage per round at those levels. That's actually rather respectable.
9) Bard's a weird class -- since it's so incredibly weak, it's tempting to multiclass. But if you don't go whole-hog with Bard, than your bard levels are just a waste that would've been better spent on rogue or sorcerer levels.
10) Bard's are pretty much straight-jacketed into a support role. Since rogues can easily outskill them and wizards & clerics can easily out-support them AND go offensive at the same time, bards are just fifth wheels.
11) The bard I played when 3E came out was a only serious bard my group's ever even tried. All bards since then have either been short-lived joke characters, or rogue/sorcerers.
12) The only really neat ability that my bard had was a really high UMD check (over +30). Unfortunately, trying to make proper use that skill is incredibly expensive (though the party wizard refusing to make scrolls for me certainly didn't help).
In theory, bards can be handy. In practice, they're damn near useless. Maybe a rebalancing that made them into real spellcasters with the full 9 levels would be interesting, though.
1) Multiclassing into another spell casting class is a bad idea.
2) Taking a prestige class that doesn't continue your casting progression is a worse idea.
3) Never, ever try to play a diplomat-type character if you yourself are naturally bad at diplomacy.
4) Charisma really is the most irrelevant stat in the entire game. No matter how high the number is, a character is only as charismatic as the player (and vice versa -- a character will effectively be every bit as charismatic as the player, no matter how low the actual score is).
5) Having a 18th level character that would be hard-pressed to hold her own in battle against a 9th level character is rather embarrassing; you'll also be nothing but a hindrance to the party in battle, unless the DM is nice and ignores you. At high levels, bards cannot protect themselves.
6) This applies to all classes, but never give a character a constitution less than 10. My Bard had a Con of 9, and that -1 per HD pretty much crippled her (she broke 20 HP around 8th level or so). Clerics and archers can get away with having a con penalty, but they're it.
7) The +1 Song isn't too bad; you're perfectly capable of fighting after you've spent a round getting it started.
8) The more warriors, the more the +1 Song is worth. Eventually, the fighters in our party were one melee fighter crit monster, 1 dragon knight, his juvenile silver dragon cohort, a fighter/rogue/lasher, an arcane archer, a paladin (my bard's cohort), the paladin's horse, and whatever the heck the real spellcasters (a cleric and a wizard) bothered to summon. With all of those people, the +1 Song was adding up to another 20-30 damage a round or so (which, sadly, was easily more damage than she could've dealt directly). With the thing actually scaling now, if my character had stayed a straight bard, it could easily have meant another 80 to 100 damage per round at those levels. That's actually rather respectable.
9) Bard's a weird class -- since it's so incredibly weak, it's tempting to multiclass. But if you don't go whole-hog with Bard, than your bard levels are just a waste that would've been better spent on rogue or sorcerer levels.
10) Bard's are pretty much straight-jacketed into a support role. Since rogues can easily outskill them and wizards & clerics can easily out-support them AND go offensive at the same time, bards are just fifth wheels.
11) The bard I played when 3E came out was a only serious bard my group's ever even tried. All bards since then have either been short-lived joke characters, or rogue/sorcerers.
12) The only really neat ability that my bard had was a really high UMD check (over +30). Unfortunately, trying to make proper use that skill is incredibly expensive (though the party wizard refusing to make scrolls for me certainly didn't help).
In theory, bards can be handy. In practice, they're damn near useless. Maybe a rebalancing that made them into real spellcasters with the full 9 levels would be interesting, though.
Similar Threads
