D&D 5E Why the Bard Could Be the Best Class in D&DNext

[the Jester]

First of all, [MENTION=51747]dmccoy1693[/MENTION], I have to quibble- the bard in 1e was a fighter/thief/druid. But the druid part actually morphed into bard. There was no mage.

(As an aside about bard rules weirdness, the 1e bard broke the rules, since you had to dual- (not multi-) class into it; and only humans could dual-class, but half-elves could be bards!)

Bard dipping in 3E was good, but have you tried playing a straight bard? Many complained they were not capable of doing much.

That's because, as others have pointed out, the bard is a lot like the 4e warlord in that when the party wins a fight because of the fighter, typically the fighter is the one that killed the monster, but when the party wins a fight because of the bard, typically the fighter is still the one that killed the monster.

You actually hit on it. They are most useful ... to others. Their time to shine is to help others be awesome. That is the common complaint about bards.

It definitely isn't a playstyle that all players, all characters or all groups enjoy, but for those that do, the bard totally rules.

 

[BobTheNob]

It definitely isn't a playstyle that all players, all characters or all groups enjoy, but for those that do, the bard totally rules.

Obsolutely. Its like playing soccer, they always celebrate the guy that kicked the goal. He just happens to be the guy who swung his foot at the right time, but it wouldn't have happened if it wasnt for the other 10 guys on the field who helped to make that opportunity a reality.

Bards are like your midfielders. Their not kicking the goals, but they are creating the opportunities that make the goals happen.

I have always loved playing bards. Being the guy who "got the kill" never mattered that much to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm assuming it won't, but that was why I did the damage bonus first.

Bard dipping in 3E was good, but have you tried playing a straight bard? Many complained they were not capable of doing much.

Bards in 3.5 are a tier 3 class. Less powerful than any PHB character class with 9 levels of spells and more powerful than any without.

As a 6-level caster with lots of skill points, I find that hard to believe. The bar that they don't reach is set pretty high.

You actually hit on it. They are most useful ... to others. Their time to shine is to help others be awesome. That is the common complaint about bards.

Bards absolutely rocked in 3.5 if you knew how to play one. They are literally stealthier than rogues (rogue stealth skills + invisibility, silence, and sculpt sound) and have more effective skill points when you include Bardic Lore. In other words they are the best skill monkeys in the game. Socially they leave rogues in the dust even without the thoroughly broken Glibness spell. And the ability to cast a spontaneous Silence wins magical duels.

About the only thing they were weak at was direct damage. (They even have some save-or-suck combat spells before the wizard gets them, like Tasha's Hideous Laughter).

 

[john112364]

One of my first 3e characters was a bard. Even though I'm usually not comfortable in a support role I loved my bard. He always seemed to be involved in everything.

He could scout with the rouge, buff the combatants in a fight and still be a fair combatant in his own right, he had skills for every occasion, was a walking legend lore spell (maybe a slight exaggeration but you get the point), was definitely the face of the party and probably more that I can't remember.

Even though he wasn't a big damage dealer I never thought he wasn't pulling his weight.