I would play a bard if. . .

[DragonLancer]

I'd happily play a bard anything. Without added incentive.

 

[freyar]

I have a player (who started this character when she'd never played before) playing a bard/wizard multiclass, and she has a great time with that character. In particular, she really likes the small monetary perks from perform checks, spontaneous spellcasting, and the great roleplaying opportunities. And most importantly, it's fun!

So, based on that, I'd play a bard, sure.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I like the bard class, and I think that the bard is a powerful class if a player can play it who is not selfish. If a player plays the bard and all they are concerned about is "me, me, me" then the class is going to disappoint. Otherwise, the class can be really fun.

 

[Roman]

I just plain don't like bards, but for me it is not so much the mechanics, as the flavour. I just don't like the 'artsy-musical' types as my characters. I recognise that bards have their place in legends, fantasy and history, but they are just not for me.

I guess I would be willing to be the group bard if it was strictly necessary for story reasons, or if for some other reason other characters were not available, or if I wanted to try playing a bard to overcome my prejudice against bards. I think that sums it up.

 

[wayne62682]

If I were forced to. I don't care for the class, either mechanics-wise or flavor-wise; in my experience (although it was a bad one, I admit) playing a Bard would get your character ridiculed in-game, and YOU ridiculed at the table. Plus I enjoy having characters who are at least marginally useful in combat situations.

I do like the Fochlucan Lyrist though, but it takes so freaking long to get there that it's just not feasible for most campaigns.

 

[senodam]

I'd happily play a bard anytime. That would actually require someone else in either of my two groups to run a game though, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

 

[Delta]

If I was playing 1E?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I once begged my players to have someone play a bard. I play very story heavy campaigns, and bards work well to uncover all that story. I even made offers to see if anyone would bite, one considered and then didn't go for it.

So, what would it take for you to play a bard? For the record, I chose the first option.

Why would a charismatic rogue be worse than a bard? They've got all the skills that count, from my PoV.

To get me to play a bard, I'd have to find a concept that isn't a musician, as I just can't take them that seriously. (It's unfair, plus music is not my strong suit, but I can't help the way I feel.)

Seriously, there would have to be a non-cheating mechanical benefit, plus a reasonable motivation, to play one. The first would take something besides max hit points, eg an actual change in game rules, and the second would be some motivation besides "following heroes and singing songs" - a reporter would be more interesting despite possibly having the exact same motivations.

 

[Lord Rasputin]

I'd play it. The only time I've played on in 3e was an epic game, and I didn't make all that good a build, but in a social-heavy game, it would rule.

 

[Nifft]

If I had a reasonable expectation of being useful, appreciated, and shining on occasion. Basically, a large group of thuds, but with players who knew that those attack bonuses stacked up.

-- N