Return of the Bard

[Kzach]

I've actually posted this topic once before and got canned for it, but I think current minds might be more receptive to it so I figured I'd try again

I like the original AD&D bard.

Now that was a class that you had to WORK for!

Now, as much as I'd like to see it be some sort of uber-class like it was in AD&D, I know that's not going to happen so what I'm trying to get at here is that I'd like to see the bard go back to its roots.

Currently the iconic bardic image is that of a spoiled fop who la-de-da's with the rich-folk and prances around in tights and/or leather straps. Not that there's anything wrong with that...

But the origins of the class are much more steeped in the old skald-esque type bard. The warrior poet and defender of Sidhe! Deriving their magical knowledge as much from their druid training as from their delving into history and lore. They are not a librarian reciting musty stanzas, they're on the front lines of battle, inciting the brave and free with visions of glorious death!

In fact, in 4e, a warlord was more bardic than the bard. Hell, the whole switch to arcane even rubs me the wrong way. They should have divine magic from nature and be just as comfortable in heavy armour as light. Wands aren't their thing; spears, greatswords and hacking axes are the bard's bread and butter. They're Celtic, Nordic, type warriors who have extended their knowledge into the divine and travelled the world. They're Braveheart and the 13th Warrior, not... fancy-schmancy pants McRobbin and his whimsical little flute.

Gnomes, elves and half-elves shouldn't be the best bardic races. The best bardic races should be dwarves, orcs or humans.

 

[Mircoles]

It was too much work. Few people had the patience for it as leveling took much longer back then. Though, putting it in the back of the book likely didn't help either.

 

[Dausuul]

I was looking at the 1E bard recently and realized: It's the first true prestige class. You have to be a level 5 fighter/5 thief and meet a bunch of ability requirements. If you do, you can then start taking levels in bard.

And I agree, the bard should get back to its Celtic roots. There's a big difference between "bard" and "minstrel."

It was too much work. Few people had the patience for it as leveling took much longer back then. Though, putting it in the back of the book likely didn't help either.

Take two fighters, Bob and Alice, who start out at 1st level with 0 XP. Level them up to 5 as fighters. Then Bob starts leveling as a thief with the aim of becoming a bard, while Alice stays a straight fighter. Bob will finish his thief levels, become a bard, and get up to 7th bard level before Alice reaches 7th fighter level. Gotta love those geometric XP tables.

The challenge is meeting the stat minimums. 15 in four stats, 12 in the fifth, and 10 in the sixth is pretty hefty.

 

[gweinel]

Actually i would love to see this kind of bard! Although my dnd origins starts from 2e and haven't experianced the 1e bard, i would really prefered the kind of approach you say, than the current one.
They designers said that they were experimented with two kinds of priest. Heck... why not two kinds of bards then? A minstrel type and a skald type.

 

[Nellisir]

And I agree, the bard should get back to its Celtic roots. There's a big difference between "bard" and "minstrel."

This must be why I renamed the 3e bard class as the "minstrel", and created a new bard class.

 

[Minigiant]

Give bards more armor and weapons

Str/Cha bards are skald-like. Singing, slightly squishier warriors.
Dex/Cha bard are minstrel-like. Singing rogues with no sneak attack.

 

[Mattachine]

I liked the Dragon Magazine version of the bard more--mix of illusion and druid magic, but single classed.

 

[KesselZero]

Don't forget that there is a bard subclass in 4e called the skald, who (while not quite at the level of heavy armor and heavy damage called for in the OP) is a melee combatant. And I do really like this class.

That being said, my totally subjective personal preference is actually against this. I think the wandering-minstrel bard archetype is just as prevalent in fantasy literature, and just as appealing, as the Nordic warrior-skald type. The legendary Taliesin was more of a trickster than a warrior, for example. I like the bard whose power comes from his own skill with a word or song, rather than from a divine source.

This, perhaps, is what subclasses/kits/archetypes are for.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I like the general flavor of the 1E bard, but a bard class should be something you can start with, not have to spend ten levels to get to.

Other thoughts:

- Music/performance of some sort should mean something to the bard.
- Players should be able to choose their specialty, whether song or instrument, or mime.
- Bards should be adaptable, so you can build a melee skald or rogueish minstrel
- Spells should be an option, but you should be able to build a mundane bard (rogue, performance, Charisma-based abilities)
- The bard should be able to either fill a niche, or if a jack-of-all-trades at least not be a burden on a small party
- Perform (puppetry) and worship of Banjo should provide extra bonuses

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

- double post -