Remathilis
Legend
So what IS a bard (according to D&D)?
In The Strategic Review (201, Feb '76) bards were a real mix of items, with little or no balance. They fought and saved like clerics, had d6 HD (which in OD&D was on par with clerics), got 7 levels of spells (but much less/slower than a magic-user) could fight with any weapon and wear chainmail, got thief skills at 1/2 level, and could charm with song or identify magic items on sight. All for XP lower than a thief. Broken, but it gives us a feel for a bard; mediocre combatant, talented dabble of magic, and skilled thief, but notice it lacks a core ability of later-bards: buffing with song.
AD&D tried to fix this by... multi-classing. Yes, the infamous "spend time as a fighter and as a thief" before becoming a bard. The actual bard cast 5 out the 7 levels of druid spells (to be fair, druids themselves needed a 17 wis to cast 6th and 18+ to cast 7th), got the ability to charm and lore as before, as well as countersong and inspire allies, plus bonus languages. Oh, he also GOT ALL THE POWERS OF A DRUID ("The bard gains druidic powers as a druid of the same level, with the exception of druidic spells as explained below.") So a bard was a fighter, thief, druid, and song charmer. That said, we still are a bit of a hodge-podge of stuff.
2e tried to fix this by combining ideas from the first bard and second while trying to balance it all. It was a tough order. The weapons and armor and d6 HD were kept, but attack, saves, and XP were that a of a rogue, not a cleric. Spells returned to wizard spells, though the slow progression/6 of 9 levels idea was kept. Songs were balanced for unlimited use (making them useless in return) and the bard's signature charm ability was weakened to merely influencing reations. Additionally, they lost the four most important thief skills (open locks, stealth, and find traps) to keep them from trampling thieves, and gained some NWPs to show off their nature as skilled PCs. All in all, a balanced attempt but its really where "Master of None" began to apply. They were average low-level fighter/mages, but that's about it.
3.0 did nearly a straight conversion, and it went terrible. Bard song was useable, but limited per day. Lore no longer identified magic items. Weapon proficiencies were simple + 1 choice, armor was useless due to spell failure, and 4 skill points per level was not nearly enough to "dabble" in skills. 3.5 did a little better by upping skill points, giving them all former choices in weapon proficiency (and use of spells in light armor) and more songs (including suggestion, mimicking the old bard charm ability). Still, He was a second-rate fighter (medium bab, d6 HD), lacked real spell power, and couldn't replace the rogue for traps. He was relegated to fifth man; making everyone better by being out of the limelight (an odd place for a showman) or abusing the diplomacy rules.
Both 3e bards did something unique with their spells; they didn't use use another classes spell list but instead made their own. It mixed a lot of former illusionist spells (illusions, charms, debuffs) with some clerical (healing, summoning, buffs) to emphasize his role as support and trickster. It meant for the first time, bards lacked offensive magic (either wizardly like fireball and magic missile or druidic like produce flame) though a few like sound burst slipped through. The problem was 3e spells were balanced against the 9-level casters (especially spells like healing, summons, and debuffs) so lacking access to high level magic meant bards at a certain point could not reliably use summons, debuffs, or healing in critical situations (and thus couldn't replace a summoner, cleric, or the like) further relegating them to "fifth man".
4e's bard placed the bard into Arcane + Leader roles. This meant a bard embraced his role as support, but now was put on par with a cleric (and other leaders) as a healer and buffer. He kept a bit of his controller heritage (with some charms and illusion powers) as well as his bits as a combatant (decent weapons and armor) but he was VERY much molded to compare with (and replace) the cleric as an arcane alternative (focused more on living then undead foes).
So as the bard progressed, he moved from "hodge-podge of fighter, thief, magic-user and/or druid with charm powers" to "healer, supporter, and buffer with a some minor combat prowess", a role that rightfully can now describe cleric. Its no wonder the Next bard seems to be cut from the cleric's cloth as a full-caster with support mechanics.
The era of "dabbler" appears to be ending, the era of "supporter" is fully here.
In The Strategic Review (201, Feb '76) bards were a real mix of items, with little or no balance. They fought and saved like clerics, had d6 HD (which in OD&D was on par with clerics), got 7 levels of spells (but much less/slower than a magic-user) could fight with any weapon and wear chainmail, got thief skills at 1/2 level, and could charm with song or identify magic items on sight. All for XP lower than a thief. Broken, but it gives us a feel for a bard; mediocre combatant, talented dabble of magic, and skilled thief, but notice it lacks a core ability of later-bards: buffing with song.
AD&D tried to fix this by... multi-classing. Yes, the infamous "spend time as a fighter and as a thief" before becoming a bard. The actual bard cast 5 out the 7 levels of druid spells (to be fair, druids themselves needed a 17 wis to cast 6th and 18+ to cast 7th), got the ability to charm and lore as before, as well as countersong and inspire allies, plus bonus languages. Oh, he also GOT ALL THE POWERS OF A DRUID ("The bard gains druidic powers as a druid of the same level, with the exception of druidic spells as explained below.") So a bard was a fighter, thief, druid, and song charmer. That said, we still are a bit of a hodge-podge of stuff.
2e tried to fix this by combining ideas from the first bard and second while trying to balance it all. It was a tough order. The weapons and armor and d6 HD were kept, but attack, saves, and XP were that a of a rogue, not a cleric. Spells returned to wizard spells, though the slow progression/6 of 9 levels idea was kept. Songs were balanced for unlimited use (making them useless in return) and the bard's signature charm ability was weakened to merely influencing reations. Additionally, they lost the four most important thief skills (open locks, stealth, and find traps) to keep them from trampling thieves, and gained some NWPs to show off their nature as skilled PCs. All in all, a balanced attempt but its really where "Master of None" began to apply. They were average low-level fighter/mages, but that's about it.
3.0 did nearly a straight conversion, and it went terrible. Bard song was useable, but limited per day. Lore no longer identified magic items. Weapon proficiencies were simple + 1 choice, armor was useless due to spell failure, and 4 skill points per level was not nearly enough to "dabble" in skills. 3.5 did a little better by upping skill points, giving them all former choices in weapon proficiency (and use of spells in light armor) and more songs (including suggestion, mimicking the old bard charm ability). Still, He was a second-rate fighter (medium bab, d6 HD), lacked real spell power, and couldn't replace the rogue for traps. He was relegated to fifth man; making everyone better by being out of the limelight (an odd place for a showman) or abusing the diplomacy rules.
Both 3e bards did something unique with their spells; they didn't use use another classes spell list but instead made their own. It mixed a lot of former illusionist spells (illusions, charms, debuffs) with some clerical (healing, summoning, buffs) to emphasize his role as support and trickster. It meant for the first time, bards lacked offensive magic (either wizardly like fireball and magic missile or druidic like produce flame) though a few like sound burst slipped through. The problem was 3e spells were balanced against the 9-level casters (especially spells like healing, summons, and debuffs) so lacking access to high level magic meant bards at a certain point could not reliably use summons, debuffs, or healing in critical situations (and thus couldn't replace a summoner, cleric, or the like) further relegating them to "fifth man".
4e's bard placed the bard into Arcane + Leader roles. This meant a bard embraced his role as support, but now was put on par with a cleric (and other leaders) as a healer and buffer. He kept a bit of his controller heritage (with some charms and illusion powers) as well as his bits as a combatant (decent weapons and armor) but he was VERY much molded to compare with (and replace) the cleric as an arcane alternative (focused more on living then undead foes).
So as the bard progressed, he moved from "hodge-podge of fighter, thief, magic-user and/or druid with charm powers" to "healer, supporter, and buffer with a some minor combat prowess", a role that rightfully can now describe cleric. Its no wonder the Next bard seems to be cut from the cleric's cloth as a full-caster with support mechanics.
The era of "dabbler" appears to be ending, the era of "supporter" is fully here.
