Where's the Bard?

[Atlatl Jones]

http://www.feartheboot.com/comic/default.aspx?c=61

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I believe there was leaked information to the effect that bards may have "planar patrons."

It was "leaked" in the pages of Races & Classes.

Anyway, the bard will be available a month after 4E comes out in the Advanced Players Guide.

 

[Blackwind]

Well, I like the idea of having a bard class in the game. Who knows, maybe they'll get it right this time. The way I see it, performance, enchantment, and loremastery are the three aspects of the class that really need to be played up. Oh, and diplomacy. Bards should be the ultimate courtiers, diplomats, and negotiators. But they need to be able to hold their own in combat, too, preferably in a swasbuckly sort of way that focuses on distracting opponents, bluffing, feinting, swinging on chandeliers, and all that. And taunting. Heh.

Back in the 3.0 days, I played a halfling bard in the RPGA's Living City campaign. It was fun. I almost always ended up being main diplomat of the group, and often stole the show when it came to roleplaying. And my character was surprisingly effective in combat, but only for reason: he had somehow obtained a +3 shocking burst light crossbow, vastly overpowered for his level. Without it, he would have been completely lame in combat.

In our current 3.5 campaign, my sisters is playing a human bard. She sucks. In combat, I mean. I had thought that I did a pretty good job of optimizing her character (she's new to the game and I helped her with stats), but for some reason her character just sucks in combat. Is there as way to make bards kick butt in 3.5 that I'm somehow missing? I don't know. It's not like we're trying to powergame, but I can see that it's not that fun for her to play a character that rarely contributes meaningfully to combat. So if 4E makes all character classes equally viable in combat, that will be awesome.

And if you don't want to wait for WotC to release the official bard, you could always check out Necromancer's upcoming Advanced Player's Guide (or whatever they decide to call it) by Ari Marmell, which I assume would include a really nice bard class.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I'm almost certain the Bard will be an Arcane Leader. His power source will be the otherworldly patrons mentioned in R&C. (Who the heck are those going to be, incidentally? I bet they'll be powerful fey lords)

I think most jacks-of-all-trades will fit the Leader role fine. To me, the basic role of generalists in D&D seems to be supporting the specialists, which sounds Leader-ish to me.

 

[Reynard]

Well, I like the idea of having a bard class in the game. Who knows, maybe they'll get it right this time. The way I see it, performance, enchantment, and loremastery are the three aspects of the class that really need to be played up. Oh, and diplomacy. Bards should be the ultimate courtiers, diplomats, and negotiators.

All this.

But they need to be able to hold their own in combat, too, preferably in a swasbuckly sort of way that focuses on distracting opponents, bluffing, feinting, swinging on chandeliers, and all that. And taunting. Heh.

But not so much this.

The idea that every character archetype needs to be able to kick ass and take names is a function of the idea that D&D is about kicking ass and taking names. It isn't, unless you -- the individual group -- say it is. But if the PHB is full of classes that focus primarily on that aspect of play, to the detriment of other aspects of play (ex: blaster wizard overtaking versatile wizard as the core archetype), the game ceases to be as variable and dynamic and a whole lot less fun.

Since the bard isn't going to make it into the PHB anyway, maybe they should go through the effort of making it a different kind of class, something that matters far more outside of combat than in it.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Well, I like the idea of having a bard class in the game. Who knows, maybe they'll get it right this time. The way I see it, performance, enchantment, and loremastery are the three aspects of the class that really need to be played up. Oh, and diplomacy. Bards should be the ultimate courtiers, diplomats, and negotiators. But they need to be able to hold their own in combat, too, preferably in a swasbuckly sort of way that focuses on distracting opponents, bluffing, feinting, swinging on chandeliers, and all that. And taunting. Heh.

QFT.

Although I can see Bards donning some fine mail and helping the Fighter or Paladin hold the line, too.

 

[EATherrian]

Out of curiosity, and this is meant with no maliciousness, but what is it about the bard you so enjoy? Personally its always been a class I never really understood since its 2E incarnation. The 1E version made a little sense being basically the first real prestige class based on druid (though all the other additions didn't make a lot of sense). In 3E the class is simply, IMHO, one of the weakest and least useful classes for adventuring.

I'm just honestly curious what people enjoy about the class.

Bards have appealed to me since 1st Edition. I like the mix of rogue and mage, with the knowledge based skills. The class feels to me like a good mix of several other classes but still has its own flavor. I know the knowledge based skills might not mean much in some games, but the games I've played in actual research and information gathering were important, so maybe I'm biased by the games I play. Also, I really ratchet up the scoundrel/rake personality when I play a bard. I see them as more the civilized rapscallion than a rogue would be. All in all, most of the focus of the class appealed to me and really spoke to my style of play. Hope this helps.

 

[Rechan]

For me, I like the Bard, thematically. I just can't stand the mechanics. I felt utterly useless at doing anything except "Talk to the merchant." I think the Artificer does the "Jack of All Trades" much better. Recently I had a player say "Hm, I'll look at Bard", opened the book, looked at their severely stunted spellcasting, and said "Okay I'll just go Swashbuckler."

I'd play a Bard, if they actually had a strong contribution in a fight and outside of it, as opposed to "REmember you get a +1 to attack and damage!"

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

But if the PHB is full of classes that focus primarily on that aspect of play, to the detriment of other aspects of play (ex: blaster wizard overtaking versatile wizard as the core archetype), the game ceases to be as variable and dynamic and a whole lot less fun.

Since the bard isn't going to make it into the PHB anyway, maybe they should go through the effort of making it a different kind of class, something that matters far more outside of combat than in it.

Hmmm, I think the response of 4E to this hypothesis is in the negative.

The new commandment is the following:
DnD is not about not kicking ass and not taking names.

The idea that you balance combat against non-combat is fundamentally obsolete for one simple fact: you can role-play bad at combat but you can't do the opposite. Social roles, on the other hand, can be role-played either way. So engineering a class that is bad at combat but compensates for it with social skills cripples the role-playing opportunities of the player base for no benefit.

A bard might indeed matter far more outside of combat than in it, but it's poor design for that to mean that the bard therefore sucks at combat.

 

[frankthedm]

In our current 3.5 campaign, my sisters is playing a human bard. She sucks. In combat, I mean. I had thought that I did a pretty good job of optimizing her character (she's new to the game and I helped her with stats), but for some reason her character just sucks in combat. Is there as way to make bards kick butt in 3.5 that I'm somehow missing? I don't know. It's not like we're trying to powergame, but I can see that it's not that fun for her to play a character that rarely contributes meaningfully to combat. So if 4E makes all character classes equally viable in combat, that will be awesome.

The Magic item compendium has a sword that might help...

Crystal Echoblade
Price (Item Level)" 4,310 gp (9th)
Body Slot: - (held)
Caster Level: 10th
Aura: Moderate; (DC 20) evocation
Activation: -
Weight: 4 lb.

A crystal echoblade normally functions as a +1 longsword, but is enhanced by your musical ability. If you use your bardic music ability while wielding the weapon, the blade resonates in harmony, dealing additional sonic damage on each attack equal to half your bard level.
Prerequisites: Craft Magic Arms and Armor, Bardic Music
Cost to Create: 2,000 go (plus 310 gp for masterwork longsword), 160 XP, 4 days.