Greetings!

I've read where some people have a passionate dislike of Bards, seeing them as feminine and useless idiots, that add little to an adventuring group, and are only worthy as a footnote in the cultural commentary of the campaign as part of the cmpaign's furniture.

I've wondered, like, geesus, you know? Throughout Celtic mythology, Bards were heroic, skilled, important people. Capable of fighting, very intelligent, and wise in lore, knowledge, and tribal geneologies and tribal laws. In Finnish and Norse mythology, the Bard may not have quite the exalted social status that Bards enjoyed in Celtic society, but Bards were none the less socially prominent and highly respected individuals. In all three traditions, Bards are deeply involved in heroic adventures, romances, epic quests, poetry, sagas, as well as numerous local social challenges, stories, and politics. Very interesting characters, and certainly a class that should be able to contribute just fine in any adventuring group.

What do you think? Thematically, do you think Bards are good and worthwhile? Mechanically, in D&D5E, is there something flawed about Bards that makes them a sub-par adventuring companion?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The Bard is an interesting class and overall I don't have a problem with it, although it's the class I like the least of all the 5e classes.
Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Then it does Psychic damage. It doesn't explain why or how that works.
 
Still, mechanically, they are a useful class to have around with the Bardic inspiration and generally being able to use lots of skills etc.
I personally don't like the Bard much. But it still remains to be a pretty popular class at Open tables where I run DnD.

Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!"

Quote from: Trond;1079716Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!"

We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK.  

Quote from: jhkim;1079717We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK.  

No I am too much of a land whale to be feminine.

Bards require a game where the solution to problems isn't always a combination of I kill it with my axe, or FIREBALL!!! While there are probably legitimate complaints, most that I've run across come down to player / GM issues. If talking and negotiating are not supported by the players / GM then yes Bards are going to suck. It isn't fun playing a PC whose only contribution is identifying magic items for the party and being comic relief.

 

Quote from: Trond;1079716Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!"

That is how I read it too.

Rename the magic-user the "bard", drop the spellbooks, give them the bardic lore. Poof, you have Taliesin.

Problem is, not enough gamers are familiar with the myths, but they're all familiar with the self-absorbed rock star archetype.

My bards were quite useful, feminine idiots. People always underestimate the spoony bard.

Quote from: Trond;1079716Am I the only one who read the title as "bards are not useless, you feminine idiots!"

Greetings!

LOL! Fantastic, my friend!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim;1079717We're all feminine compared to big, manly SHARK.  

Greetings!

LOL! Yes, that's right!:)

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.

Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.

What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life.  You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord?  The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary.  You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.

Quote from: Azraele;1079726My bards were quite useful, feminine idiots. People always underestimate the spoony bard.

Greetings!

Hey Azraele! Indeed, I think Bards are very versatile and flexible characters. They have a wide range of interesting abilities. Something I also like about them is that while not as *glamorous* as a Fighter or Barbarian, or as lethal as a Rogue, whether the Bard is adventuring out in the countryside, or finds themselves wheeling and dealing in the Lord's court, a Bard can always be very useful in many situations. Some of the other characters when not in their element so to speak, can often be like a fish out of water. The Bard never really has that problem.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Toadmaster;1079723Bards require a game where the solution to problems isn't always a combination of I kill it with my axe, or FIREBALL!!! While there are probably legitimate complaints, most that I've run across come down to player / GM issues. If talking and negotiating are not supported by the players / GM then yes Bards are going to suck. It isn't fun playing a PC whose only contribution is identifying magic items for the party and being comic relief.

 



That is how I read it too.

Greetings!

Good points, Toadmaster! I agree. The DM shouldn't be setting up every problem where the only solution is a battleaxe or a fireball! LOL. I love that imagery, Toadmaster! Oh gosh, we have to *talk* to the courtiers? LOL.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: danskmacabre;1079715The Bard is an interesting class and overall I don't have a problem with it, although it's the class I like the least of all the 5e classes.
Mainly as the spells don't feel like they are that explainable in RP terms.
The spell Vicious mockery is an example of this. It seems to work with any creature, regardless of whether it can understand you or have intelligence.
Then it does Psychic damage. It doesn't explain why or how that works.
 
Still, mechanically, they are a useful class to have around with the Bardic inspiration and generally being able to use lots of skills etc.
I personally don't like the Bard much. But it still remains to be a pretty popular class at Open tables where I run DnD.

Greetings!

Interesting, Danskmacabre. You like them the *least* of all the 5E classes. I think some of their spells are kind of wierd, too though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1079731That's because they ARE useless at what a lot of people mistakenly believe what they are, even the designers sometimes.

Bards are useless at being a Jack of All Trades.

What they are useful as, is the party 'face', the person that goes and deals with the social aspects of the game/life.  You need to speak to a king or a merchant lord?  The Bard should know what to say, to flatter or intimidate as necessary.  You don't send the Rogue to talk to the guards, after all.

Greetings!

Interesting, Christopher Brady. I can see your point. I'm not certain that if you pull much from the Celtic/Norse mythology that Bards should *necessarily* be "Jack of all trades". That's definitely a later medieval era/Renaissance flavour tacked onto them, I think. Which is also where I think the designers drew most of their inspiration for the Bard from--the Renaissance era motif, which is, by then, what the medieval Bard had *become*. But that wasn't very close to what the Bard actually was *historically*, before the Renaissance, in the old Celtic and Norse and Finnish lands. Back then, the Bard was a warrior, but also something of a religious figure, a spiritual figure, a man knowledgable of ancient lore and mysteries, as well as someone with a keen knowledge of a people's history, and oaths, laws, and genealogies. For peoples that had no writing, or very limited writing, someone with a Bard's skills, knowledge, and finely-trained memory, was an enormous resource, for everyone, whether he was a common farmer, a local warrior, or a prominent Lord.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK