What is so wrong with Bards?

[tdenmark]

I notice a lot of negativity towards Bards, particularly amongst the OSR. I get that the 1st edition Bard was poorly implemented, but TSR really did it much better in 2nd edition (and WotC designed them well in later editions).

I have always thought it was a cool concept for a class, and it has a lot of historical weight to it. Bards, skalds, musicians, and storytellers feature prominently in medieval lore.

I'm not looking for a flame war, or trolling, or anything. I'm genuinely curious why Bards are so distasteful to so many players?

[makofan]

I think the Strategic Review bard is just fine. The AD&D bard was just poorly implemented. Gain fighter levels, then switch to thief and gain thief levels, then finally get to switch to bard

[Deleted]

I always loved the idea of bards and other non combat classes in my fantasy tabletop games. My current character in Dwarf Fortress adventure mode is a Storyteller Human who spends all day telling epic sagas for food and board. Maybe not riveting gameplay for some folks but I like it. The 1e Bard is a meme for a reason though. I prefer it being a normal profession from level one and not some super hybrid badass.

[Punkrabbitt]

Bards are the Rock Stars of the D&D world. Who doesn't want to play Ozzy Osbourne or Gene Simmons or Ronnie James Dio in D&D? It is literally what the music was about! The 1e implementation was horrid, though. They all carry their Axe, right?

[geoffrey]

I dislike the bard character class in the 1st edition AD&D Players Handbook, but I like the concept of a bard character class. My favorite version of the bard class is that in the Castles & Crusades game. Here is a quick and dirty conversion thereof that I have done for AD&D:

Bards use the fighter "to hit" table.

They have 10-sided hit dice.

In C&C, any race can be any class. I'd retain the AD&D limitations here (or limit them to humans only).

Their xp progression is as follows:

1st level needs 0 xp
2nd level needs 1501 xp
3rd level needs 3251 xp
4th level needs 7501 xp
5th level needs 15,001 xp
6th level needs 30,001 xp
7th level needs 60,001 xp
8th level needs 120,001 xp
9th level needs 240,001 xp
10th level needs 450,001 xp
11th level needs 625,001 xp
12th level needs 800,001 xp
an additional 175,000 xp for each level over 12th

alignment: any

weapons allowed: broadsword, bows, club, dagger, dart, hand axe, hammers, javelin, longsword, rapier, scimitar, short sword, sling, spear, staff

armor allowed: leather, padded, ring, studded, chain, shield

They have the following special abilities:

1. At all levels, bards can attempt to read unknown languages. In AD&D terms, I'd just use thief percentages for this, giving 1st-3rd level bards a 15% chance to read languages.

2. Once per day per level, a bard can inspire his listeners, giving them a +2 bonus on die rolls (excluding to hit rolls). This bonus becomes +3 at 6th level and +4 at 12th level.

3. Legend lore: I'd retain the percentages in the AD&D PHB on page 118.

4. Beginning at 4th level, bards can attempt to fascinate creatures. In AD&D terms, I'd simply retain the charm percentage on p. 118 of the AD&D PHB. I'd adopt the C&C version's limitation on being able to do this only three times per day (rather than the seemingly unlimited times the AD&D rules allow).

5. At 9th level, bards can exhort greatness in one creature. The creature gets +2 to all "to hit" rolls, and 2 HD worth of additional temporary hit points.

[tdenmark]

Aug 8, 2020 12:24:24 GMT -6 makofan said:

I think the Strategic Review bard is just fine. The AD&D bard was just poorly implemented. Gain fighter levels, then switch to thief and gain thief levels, then finally get to switch to bard

Thanks for reminding me. I just reread it, you're right, it's pretty good! Why wasn't that the 1e Bard?? So much better than that train wreck in the official published version.

Strategic Review Bard.

[tkdco2]

I like bards, but everyone else in my group hated them. When someone else was the DM, he said he didn't allow them in his game. I would have played the Best of Dragon variant or the 2e version otherwise.

[Falconer]

I had a few AD&D 1e Bards in my games some years back. The only issue I remember is that they had unusually high hit points. I never had a problem with the way they had to be fighters and thieves first—I thought that was pretty cool.

[thegreyelf]

Interesting thing about the AD&D Bard. You could consider it the origin of what we'd later see as Prestige Classes in 3.0/3.x. The Thief/Acrobat is another early example of a Prestige class.

All that said, I, too, have always enjoyed the Strategic Review version of the Bard.

[tdenmark]

Aug 17, 2020 10:53:59 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Interesting thing about the AD&D Bard. You could consider it the origin of what we'd later see as Prestige Classes in 3.0/3.x. The Thief/Acrobat is another early example of a Prestige class.

Agreed.

While the 1e Bard is a clunky precursor, the Acrobat had a great deal of potential. That is one good thing about 3rd edition, the idea was perfected with prestige classes.

[tkdco2]

I never warmed up to the prestige classes myself. Then again, I never played the acrobat and preferred the Best of Dragon version of the bard.

[premmy]

Aug 17, 2020 10:53:59 GMT -6 thegreyelf said:

Interesting thing about the AD&D Bard. You could consider it the origin of what we'd later see as Prestige Classes in 3.0/3.x. The Thief/Acrobat is another early example of a Prestige class.

So are, from a few years later, the Druid, the Paladin and the Avenger from BECMI.

[howandwhy99]

I really believe the Bard should be the 4th character class. I see the game as having only 3 class games (and Alignment really needs AD&D to be a full-fledged game system), and the Thief as a basic NPC class (Assassin as expert NPC).

A 4th game focused on the act of storytelling, story recording, personal expression, artistic creation, and creativity in all things would go a long way to bringing contemporary cultural advancements to the D&D game. Bard could really fill the bill as a core class. It has to be better than telling people 1/4 of the game is about teaching players to be thieves (or worse, assassins).

[tkdco2]

Aug 27, 2020 21:17:49 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

I really believe the Bard should be the 4th character class. I see the game as having only 3 class games (and Alignment really needs AD&D to be a full-fledged game system), and the Thief as a basic NPC class (Assassin as expert NPC).

A 4th game focused on the act of storytelling, story recording, personal expression, artistic creation, and creativity in all things would go a long way to bringing contemporary cultural advancements to the D&D game. Bard could really fill the bill as a core class. It has to be better than telling people 1/4 of the game is about teaching players to be thieves (or worse, assassins).

I like that idea. However, most of the players I gamed with preferred dungeon crawls and thought that bards just didn't belong there. Even now, at least one person I know still believes that.

[DungeonDevil]

A Bard is part of the retinue of a high-lvl Fighting Man who is now famous and has a need for a NPC chronicler to boast of his doughty deeds. Remember most heroes were arrogant tools who had no need for humility (e.g. Beowulf, many of the warriors in the Ulster Cycle).

[tkdco2]

Brave Sir Robin ran away!
Bravely ran away, away!

[tedopon]

Aug 27, 2020 21:17:49 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

It has to be better than telling people 1/4 of the game is about teaching players to be thieves (or worse, assassins).

I have not learned much about being a holy man, wizard or soldier in my decades of playing D&D.

[muddy]

Aug 27, 2020 21:17:49 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

I really believe the Bard should be the 4th character class. I see the game as having only 3 class games (and Alignment really needs AD&D to be a full-fledged game system), and the Thief as a basic NPC class (Assassin as expert NPC).

A 4th game focused on the act of storytelling, story recording, personal expression, artistic creation, and creativity in all things would go a long way to bringing contemporary cultural advancements to the D&D game. Bard could really fill the bill as a core class. It has to be better than telling people 1/4 of the game is about teaching players to be thieves (or worse, assassins).

A very interesting take, similar to my own thoughts about thieves - that they balance things out by adding a stealthy character type to the others. If the game isn't solely about dungeon exploration, I would say you are correct. Which isn't to say there is no value to your view even it it is solely about dungeon exploration.

[Deleted]

Cornucopia  - in one of my gaming groups there is a player who always plays bards. It's just his adventuring idiom.

[geoffrey]

Aug 27, 2020 21:17:49 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

I really believe the Bard should be the 4th character class. I see the game as having only 3 class games (and Alignment really needs AD&D to be a full-fledged game system), and the Thief as a basic NPC class (Assassin as expert NPC).

A 4th game focused on the act of storytelling, story recording, personal expression, artistic creation, and creativity in all things would go a long way to bringing contemporary cultural advancements to the D&D game. Bard could really fill the bill as a core class. It has to be better than telling people 1/4 of the game is about teaching players to be thieves (or worse, assassins).

I like to regard the monk character class as a good replacement for thieves.

[Deleted]

Aug 8, 2020 12:15:18 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

 I'm genuinely curious why Bards are so distasteful to so many players?

My take: As a jack-of-all-trades class (assuming we are talking about the Strategic Review version or something likeminded), they don't bring enough to the average-sized party to make sense in an OD&D game. Each of the three principal OD&D classes gives the party something it really needs, with the fourth class (thief) being a useful but unnecessary supplement. A couple of fighters, a cleric, a magic-user, and a thief: you're already at 5 players. In my experience, it's hard to get that many together, let alone more. The bard, providing a little of several things, but not at the same level of accomplishment/ability of the standard classes, just seems less useful overall. That said, I wouldn't say that it makes them "distasteful."

I'm also not fond of the lore ability to the extent that it can be used to replace in-game problem-solving or item-identification with a die roll.

[rustic313]

Aug 8, 2020 12:24:24 GMT -6 makofan said:

I think the Strategic Review bard is just fine. The AD&D bard was just poorly implemented. Gain fighter levels, then switch to thief and gain thief levels, then finally get to switch to bard

I've studied it quite closely and think the SR bard is kind of awkward in a lot of ways.  The SR bard derives a lot of their power from (A) entourage and (B) key magic items.  If you don't want a passel of NPC followers, and if the DM doesn't place your specific magic items there's problems.

I played a 1E bard but only in a high level campaign where there was sufficient XP to jump in right as a bard (D series modules).  The class was incredibly versatile and potent.  Probably OP in thoughtful hands.

This is a relatively rare case for me where I think D&D 3.5 got it a bit better. The third edition bard is a nice "jack of all trades, master of none."  Sort of a rogue variant that trades damage dealing for utility magic.

[howandwhy99]

Aug 27, 2020 23:13:19 GMT -6 tkdco2 said:

I like that idea. However, most of the players I gamed with preferred dungeon crawls and thought that bards just didn't belong there. Even now, at least one person I know still believes that.

I for one see the basic course of game play as dungeon delving: Gear up and plan in lawful civilization, explore and traverse the vast neutral wilderness, and delve into the dark heart of chaotic horrors. It is quite similar to Dungeon! boardgame, only far more complicated and fun.

I also believe this makes the game an adventure or exploration game by design rather than a build game. Players have to risk unknown areas and challenges for unknown rewards as opposed to sitting and gaming to building themselves up based on known designs.

NPCs play the latter game. Farmer (Agricola), Plantation owner (Puerto Rico), Blacksmith, Innkeep, etc. are all NPC classes. PC classes can be played similarly. FM on guard duty day after day, M-Us experimenting in a laboratory never seeing the light of day, and so on. Those are potential game designs. PCs are the adventuring version of those classes.

Adventuring Bards could be the 4th class if they had a reason to be suicidal (frankly, a PC). They aren't unfocused mixed bags in my book. All the classes have assigned ability in all of the others, only to a lesser degree. Fewer combat proficiencies, fewer magic proficiencies, less chance with alignment change. But all focus on and are best at their role and get better at it with XP. That's the kind of roleplaying D&D is about.

I think Bard is a sort of crafter, creative, artistic type who is rewarded by the truly strange and different found in dungeons and long forgotten places. Which can than be incorporated in their sharing of such beauties and horrors with others.

I'm still futzing with the idea and possible mechanics, adventure design, XP rewards, everything really.

[Deleted]

The Bard would be a good example of an OD&D class which uses CHA as its prime requisite, which opens up that can of worms leading to possible CON candidates.

[coffee]

I've known a few bards and played a few of my own (mostly in 3e). I've always liked them.

With my sense of humor, I can play my character and still crack wise.

[tkdco2]

I always enjoy playing bards. I can sometimes compose a verse about the current adventure with a bit of humor in it, so the group can have a laugh or two.

I've had DMs who didn't allow them, which is frustrating. Their loss, I suppose.

[tkdco2]

I also tend to play bards as lore masters and historians rather than musicians. Their motivation is to uncover knowledge (history, legends, etc.) that has been lost for generations.

"A bard? Isn't that the hair on your face?"

[Red Baron]

The problem with bards is that they are a grab bag of different character classes and step on everyone else's toes.

Ideally the bard would do its own thing. The thief for example is a thief because he can "pick pockets". He has his own thing he does that doesn't duplicate what a fighting man or magic user does.

The bard should not fight like a fighting man, and should not cast spells like a wizard, and not have all the abilities of a thief. Charming, buffing, etc are also kind of a bogus ability set - both overpowered and replicating what a magic user can do.

Ideas for bards
1. Learn a new language each level.
2. Player can access a standard dictionary, thesaurus, or rhyming dictionary at any point during the game (useful for solving riddles and puzzles?)

Bards should not have access to arms and armor any more than a thief or magic user does, and should not have access to spells any more than a fighting man or thief.

[tdenmark]

Sept 29, 2020 10:01:52 GMT -6 Red Baron said:

The problem with bards is that they are a grab bag of different character classes and step on everyone else's toes.

This sums it up rather nicely. Perhaps there is a way to design one that has a clearly defined niche and an important role to fill, but so far I haven't seen it.

I still like them and want to figure out an ideal version.

[Piper]

Sept 29, 2020 17:59:08 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I still like them and want to figure out an ideal version.

Have you ever read Jordan's Wheel of Time series? There was a bard-type character in that series I thought was pretty spiffy.

I'd consider giving bards acrobatic and thieving skills, music-based magic effects (charm, inspire, dismay, perhaps even heal and restore). I would also include second or third tier fighting skills.

I'd prefer a "thief" who was actually a bard as a means of picking locks and defeating traps.