what the bard is/should be

[Desdichado]

Wow, our party currently has two bards. They are by far the most useful of characters. Of course I guess it depends on what kind of game is being played.

All kinds of campaigns from hacknslash to deep, investigative, urban mysteries and political intrigues. The bard still doesn't appeal, except to one player I've ever known. I'd rather use something along the lines of the Rokugan courtier for a "diplomacy" character, than the bard. The archetype is all screwed up, IMO. A bard is a musician, not a diplomat, not a minor league combatant, not a spellcaster. And a musician as an archetype isn't a compelling character class.

The Monte Cook bard at least provides a solid archetype I could get behind (although I'd still not likely play one) but for my money, the "bard" should be a reworking of the gleeman prestige class from the WoT game. A bard is anyone else who takes Perform skills.

 

[Shadowdancer]

I chose Faceman, the two knowledge options, musician with spellcasting and best solo play.

The knowledge options should be obvious -- the bard is in the best position for this.

I think of a bard as a musician with spellcasting rather than a spellcaster with music. To me, a bard is a musician/performer first and foremost. A spellcaster with music is not a bard -- its a sorcerer who has taken some ranks in Perform. The bard casts his spells through/with his music or performing ability.

With his high charisma and ability to influence others, a bard makes a wonderful faceman for the party.

With his various options and abilities, a bard makes an excellent choice for solo play or a one-character campaign. I think a rogue and a bard are both good choices for solo play. The rogue is better at combat, and gets more skills, but a bard has spells, including healing. And he can influence people to get them to help him. And he can earn a decent living honestly.

I don't like the picture of a bard as "jack of all trades, master of none." He is the master of at least one -- Performing.

I also don't like the idea of the buffing boom box -- a bard is so much more. Yes, he can boost the abilities of his comrades, but I don't think the other players should come to rely on his buffing abilities. The Bardic Abilities like Inspire are OK; but having the bard waste all or most of his spells on things like Bull's Strength and Cat's Grace -- that's not for me. The bard's spells should be geared toward his performing -- enchantments and illusions. He can have some variety, for personal defense and such, but I don't like the bard being in such an obvious supporting role. It's like making the cleric a walking first aid kit -- he can be so much more, why limit him? Buy some potions, heal yourself and let the cleric blossom into a well-rounded character.

 

[Merlion]

I voted face, the knowledge options and spellcasting muscian...although I feel with a bard the line between music and magic is very very blurred.
The Bard is one of my favorite classes and I take great expetion to those that have said it should be removed for one reason or other...be it to be made into a prestige class or whatever. the Bard(or whatever you want to call it...a person with magical music/poetry etc) is very much a part of fantasy....a LOT of the specfics vary...but the overall concept is all but universal.
That being said I think the Bard as an archtype and an RPG class is, can be, and should be able to be a lot of things...and a lot of combinations of things. Muscian, user of magic, master of knowledge, people person, warrior(to some extent), poet, dancer, orator....warrior/knowledge master magician/people person etc etc. Theirs as many bard types as their are players.

 

[Merlion]

***bumpity bumpty~~~

 

[takyris]

I don't hate the bard, I just see no use for him. Neither do most players I've ever gamed with. A class that "inspires" that much apathy can't be very useful.

Wow -- most of the players that I've gamed with think that the class is really versatile and fun to play. My anecdotal evidence TOTALLY counters your anecdotal evidence!

-Tacky

 

[Michael Tree]

I don't hate the bard, I just see no use for him. Neither do most players I've ever gamed with. A class that "inspires" that much apathy can't be very useful.

Are you sure that apathy isn't because the 3.0 bard is frankly a sub-par class?

 

[fusangite]

The "problem" of the Bard in 3E is that when the party is in combat, the bard is the least useful character. When the party is in a social/diplomatic situation, the Bard is so much better than every other character combined. Thus, the Bard may seem underpowered to those who have a combat emphasis and overpowered to those who have a diplomatic emphasis.

The only thing I think is wrong with the Bard is the prohibition against taking Silent Spell. While I understand that this is about the "feel" of the Bard, I would argue that in fact, the prohibition puts a huge inappropriate hole in one of the Bard's key abilities. It seems unreasonable that every other spell casting class can theoretically cast Enchantment spells nigh-undetectably (by combining Silent and Still Spell) in social situations while the Bard cannot.

Anyway, I like the Bard so much it is probably the class I would most often choose to play.