Why Are Bards...Bards?

[Brian Compton]

Many of the very interesting takes on bards in film, fantasy, and myth above conveniently ignore the class restriction against being of Lawful alignment.

Please, tell me how you get around this peccadillo. I find many aspects of the Bard kinda neat, but the Chaotic nature of the class has kept me away from it. That, and the feeling that knowing guitar chords is some unspoken RPGing prereq.

I forgot about this. Funny- there was a feat just published in either Dragon or Complete Adventurer that combined bard and paladin abilities. Guess that kind of doesn't work, does it.

Two choices:

1) In the rules, play neutral with respect to law and chaos, with more of a lawful leaning.

2) Talk to your DM and see if you can ignore the rule.

Truthfully, except for the innate magic component, I don't see why a bard can't be lawful. Also, I don't think that the bard loses class abilities if they stray towards lawfulness like the barbarian does. So, you could start as a bard, change alignment in midstream, and keep going as something else. Heck, if a rogue can be lawful, anyone can.

 

[Endur]

The Bard is a great social character, but the class has issues with combat.

I had a Bard character I played once who made every knowledge and diplomacy check (consistently rolled 15+) and blew every attack roll (consistently rolled 5-).

Even without those problems, though, the Bard's BAB, feats, combat abilities, profiencies, means that in a serious combat, you'll hit the ground fast if you are in melee. This is particularly a problem if you view your Bard as a valiant swordsman. Although unlike the real swordsman, you lack the armor class and the hit points to defend yourself and you lack the offensive power to smash the other guy first.

My Bard was quite the gallant nobleman, but I felt like I was destined to end up like Boromir (i.e. dead).

 

[Mark]

But what stands out to me is how well the bard class represents so many other concepts that have nothing to do with being a minstrel

Perhaps it's the idea that an artist, as an observer of life, has the ability to imitate, even if only a pale imitation, while having some skills of their own that are unique.

 

[reanjr]

Many of the very interesting takes on bards in film, fantasy, and myth above conveniently ignore the class restriction against being of Lawful alignment.

Please, tell me how you get around this peccadillo. I find many aspects of the Bard kinda neat, but the Chaotic nature of the class has kept me away from it. That, and the feeling that knowing guitar chords is some unspoken RPGing prereq.

Well, I generally play Chaotic Good or Neutral Good, so that's never been an issue for me. As to guitar chords, my bards never played musical instruments; that's one way around that issue. Oh, and the fact that guitars don't exist in any campaign I've ever played. Nor did modern musical chords in some cases...

 

[reanjr]

The Bard is a great social character, but the class has issues with combat.

I had a Bard character I played once who made every knowledge and diplomacy check (consistently rolled 15+) and blew every attack roll (consistently rolled 5-).

Even without those problems, though, the Bard's BAB, feats, combat abilities, profiencies, means that in a serious combat, you'll hit the ground fast if you are in melee. This is particularly a problem if you view your Bard as a valiant swordsman. Although unlike the real swordsman, you lack the armor class and the hit points to defend yourself and you lack the offensive power to smash the other guy first.

My Bard was quite the gallant nobleman, but I felt like I was destined to end up like Boromir (i.e. dead).

Hmmm... I never had a problem staying alive. With judicious use of ranged combat combined with staying near the cleric (not for healing, mind you, but because cleric is a powerhouse who takes a lot of hits) in melee, I never had a problem.

Add to that the fact that my character was the one most likely to actually cast a spell for someone else or use my abilities on someone else rather than myself. That combined with my likeable character (high charisma) meant that when I was in danger, other characters would put themselves on the line to protect me.

Bards are awesome...

 

[Nazerel]

Particularly when combined with Psychic Warrior, either as a multiclass or as a Gestalt.

Funny you should mention this. I was entertaining thoughts of playing a non-psionic Jedi-esque character. Level 12, gestalt rules: Bard 10/Sublime Chord 2 + Swashbuckler 7/Occult Slayer 5 (the PrCs wouldn't overlap with that build since you can't combine 2 PrCs under gestalt rules, or take levels in Hexblade and/or Fighter if Swashbuckler doesn't cut it). After level 10, you can switch to a Lawful alignment if you wanted to reflect their stricter discipline and training (or just ignore the alignment restriction altogether). Take feats like Lyric Spell and Disguise Spell from Complete Adventurer (maybe Blind-Fight and Hear The Unseen to emphasize the blind-fighting training they go through); spells like detect thoughts, telekinesis, charm monster, haste, whirling blade, calm emotions; and give her a brilliant energy songblade (+2 Perform checks, 1 extra bardic music a day, it hums as it's drawn and swung) and voila.

Take Perform (Oratory) rather than sing or musical instrument; load up on diplomacy, bluff, sense motive, tumble, balance, jump; the bard's suggestion ability ("These aren't the droids you're looking for...") plus the Occult Slayer's Nondetection and Mind Blank abilities come in handy, not to mention their spellturning ability with their favored weapon (think of it as a lightsaber deflecting blaster shots). Who says Occult Slayers have to hate spellcasters... ignoring the PrC's flavor text, you can just as easily say that they're an elite corp of warriors, perhaps working with or under powerful spellcasters, specifically trained to defeat other spellcasters, kinda like the Suel Arcanamach PrC or the Jordain warriors from Elaine Cunningham's Magehound series of novels.

 

[scipio]

Unlike most folks here, I hate bards, and so do my players. In the last game in which I was a player, I ran a rogue/fighter with high ranks in perform(voice). The rest of the group said I was a "sucky" bard. Why? Because I was an effective member of the party, i.e. bards are useless. I've been gradually dismantling the bard class, since no one ever elects to play one, by splitting up the musical abilities and granting them to other classes (Good and Evil Song Domains for priests, the Warrior Poet prestige class for fighters, etc.).

My wife plays a bard regularly. She has a great singing voice and will sing her parts and improvise lyrics as we play. It adds a whole lot to the role playing at the table.

Now, if any of the eight of us could do this, we'd probably change our tune (*groan*) about bards. You guys must really enjoy that kind of enthusiastic role-playing. As the DM in my game, I'm the only one who even engages in accents.

 

[Harpsichord]

I like the Bard. I have since before 2e came out. It is the class I play most often. The first bard I played was based off an article from Dragon in which it became easier to become a bard, but was not as powerful as the original 1e bard. Although, if I had been playing 1e before that rather than Oe, I probably would have tried building one the old way.

I think 2e stated it best that a bard ius a Jack-of all-trades, master of none (except which ever peformance he chooses). Bards definitely can forego music, 2e had bard kits that instead used juggling, tumbling, oration, or flashy weapon shows. Others (especially the demi-human racial kits) used less traditional music types: whistling, chanting, etc. The 3e prestige class loremaster was originally a bard kit that mostly forewent performance in favor of obscure knowledge. The 3e addition of healing spells to the bards abilities merely emphasizes the jack-of-all-trades idea.

As far as leaving the comfy bar. In 2e it was supposedly a wanderlust that was common to all bards. I prefer to think along the line that bards thirst for knowledge, legends. This type of information doesn't fall into your lap, not if you want the true story. The best epics are created from close knowledge, go out and talk to the people that were there. Or better yet, be there yourself. My favorite character operates on the premise that no one can create the story as well as himself. Adam, the chef on Northern Exposure, once said the reason to cook was to eat, and "Do you think I want to eat some crap you made?" Harpsichord's opinion of performance is the same "Do you think I want to (sing/recite/play) some shlock you wrote?" So he travels in search of material for his own works. Another bard I play does stay in the bar, in fact he owns it. He plays politician and the only adventure he gets is when the town is threatened some way. 2e bards were supposedly based on their celtic counter part. It's a loose connection in my opinion, but they were responsible for education and had to travel to bring this education around to the different clans. And if I'm not mistaken, the were also the experts in the law.

A bard could definitely make a good spy, a better use of his performance is acting however--how many times has James bond won because he tricked his opponents into underestimating him, or making them nervous by remaining confident when he was out of ideas?

Be creative with the bard and it can do anything, if he uses some skills more than others--don't all charactes rely on some of their skills more than others. So he doesn't use his inspire. Maybe this bard relies on suggest, instead. In the case of the spy, maybe that's how he gets the girl to spill the goods. Or makes the bad guy tell the evil plan, right before the bard/spy escapes and foils it all.

And as far as, not having a back up: so he doesn't have a back up skill-he still has the back up plan. Maybe it's magic, maybe he has high skills all around and fights as well as he speaks. If he gets detonated, it's because the bad guy correctly identified him as the real threat, or he didn't have his back up.

Yes, any given class can be described as better, but any other class has to be combined/multiclassed to get all the advantages a bard gets. And even then they miss out on something.

The skald was a kit in the 2e complete bard's handbook.



--"Many of the very interesting takes on bards in film, fantasy, and myth above conveniently ignore the class restriction against being of Lawful alignment. Please, tell me how you get around this peccadillo."-- Simple, follow the law but be disorganized, and follow the spirit of the law but not always the letter, etc.

Yes, a bard may not survive in one on one, except that the bard will find ways to avoid this. Use things around you to tip the balance, it's what chandeliers were invented for. To play a bard, you have to be a creative player, knowing you can't last one-to-one--you combine your skills. hack, hack, retreat, cast spell, toss ale flagon, hack, repeat.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

See people all bards donm't have to be pansies take a a level or two in barbarian and you can be like Fafhrd or Wizards or Monte Cook or some d20 publisher could make a skald core class.

Well, there is a Savage Bard variant in Unearthed Arcanan.

AR

 

[Nightfall]

*thinks the only good bard is a dead one...* Elan proves my point.