What makes a bard a bard?

[Chimera]

The 3e Bard is just too vesatile for his own good it seems. He can become an Enchanter, Archer, Light Infantry (using illusions for defense), or Chameleon that can switch roles at the drop of a hat without affecting his abilities to buff the party significantly.

Not really for all values of "too" (versatile). A Cleric can be a bookish healer or diviner, a simple healer, or a major league magically enhanced warrior; or many other roles, depending on his domains, attributes and what he choses to do. Likewise with Wizard, Druid and Rogue. Each of these classes is broad enough with enough options that many different roles and archtypes can be served within the same class.

This is what is generally called a "feature", not a flaw.

It is also one of the things I like about playing my Bard, in that while I may have a view of what role he plays right now; with changes in the party changing party needs, within a few levels I can make adjustments in what my character is capable of doing (through skill, spell and feat selections as well as equipment).

Like for instance, because our group's Cleric missed a bunch of games in a period and caused us some problems with healing, I accepted an affiliation with Onatar that gave me the Reserve Feat that allowed me to do healing, and took CMW to do it. So now I can heal 6hp (3hp per spell level of available uncast healing spell) as a standard action anytime I want (as long as the target is below 50% hp), plus the CM spells themselves when really needed. Presto, instant party reserve Cleric, and it's just a side-role for my Bard.

Next level I'm taking Major Image and Sphere of Invisibility, because they're seriously useful and will cover some holes that the party Wizard gained by specializing in Conjurations.

 

[HP Dreadnought]

I like the 1st edition Bard. A fighter/rogue blend with a dash of magic and the ability to inspire and entertain through song.

Truth be told, I don't even care about that last bit. LOL!!

 

[SSquirrel]

Being ineffectual, in a musical way.

Cheers, -- N

This indeed. An edition of D&D w/a Bard who isn't completely inferior in every way is NOT D&D

 

[lutecius]

You spoony bard!

actually I am more of the tarty type.

yuck. I think basing bards purely on historical or mythical sources is a terrible way to go.

and nobody said otherwise. Almost any class so designed would make lame dungeon crawlers.
What I am saying is that the dnd bard should give more than a passing nod to the class it was named after.
Music and poetry as a power source or spell theme are not such a stretch, especially with the 4e narrow class approach.

If you want a roguish jack-of-all-trades, just multiclass your rogue into warlock or whatever you need.
There’s no point in calling him a bard or saddling him with halfssed perform skills unless they really fit your character concept.