The Much Maligned Bard

[this is the second time I'm sitting down to write a draft on this subject; let's see if it gets posted]

When I was a kid, the bard was my favorite character class. 

As an adult, I really like fighters (of all stripes). But the bard might still be my favorite character class. Just for different reasons.

Having said that, when I say bard, I'm talking the Rules As Written, 1E (AD&D) bard. I accept no substitutes. In fact, in all other editions of the game, the bard is dead to me.

And I've tried...Lord knows I've tried...to like bards in the various editions. The OD&D version (first published in The Strategic Review). The 2nd edition version (play-tested that one, solo, when running Return to White Plume Mountain).  The 3rd edition version (played one of those, too...a half-elf). I've included my own B/X versions of the bard in two of my own books (my B/X Companion and The Complete B/X Adventurer). I even wrote up a version of the bard for use with Holmes Basic that I thought was pretty good, and I've suggested re-skinning the cleric as a bard, for folks who don't dig a religious angle in their games.

None of these suffice to make the class palatable.

And, no, it may NOT be the "adjusted" versions of the bard that are floating around the tables playing 1E. I've tried Huso's curated, bard specific spell list. I've played the illusionist-style and song-variant versions found in Dragon #56. Heck, I've posted rules for a single-class version of the bard, myself...that I've since discarded.

All unsatisfying.

Gygax's version of the bard...the version found in Appendix II of the PHB...is the only version I use, the only version I'm interested, the only version I enjoy playing or running. I first discovered that bard circa Spring of 1985...nearly 40 years ago. I've played at least half a dozen bards since then, and run (as a DM) at least half a dozen more. Hm. More (now that I think about it)...at least 7 or 8 over the years, although several of these never made it out of the "wannabe" stage of their careers.

I like the bard as written. I run it exactly as given in the PHB. I supplement ONLY with the clarifications and Q&A info provided in the Sage Advice column of Dragon #56, all of which I have found to be sound and perfectly reasonable. Aside from the lack of alignment restriction and training costs (universal changes for my home campaign), I deviate not a whit from the class as written.

I find it perfect.

As a kid, I liked the class because it was different and it seemed to offer a lot of power: thief abilities, bard abilities, spells, good fighting. The bard characters of my youth, which I have described often enough in prior posts, were powerful, and wondrously adaptable (as all multi-class characters tend to be)...but certainly not ALL powerful. High level fighters were far better at fighting. High level clerics and magic-users were far more powerful and versatile spell-casters. High level thieves could sneak better and backstab for more damage.  

My old bard...viewed with a bit of distance and maturity...was mainly "powerful" due to the possession of fairly good psionic abilities, something few bards (or few of ANY character!) can count on acquiring. Take away the psionics and you have a middling good character with a lot of abilities that requires good play to get the most out of it.

And that's what I like about the bard these days: the challenge of the character class. Leveling the character isn't difficult...well, no more difficult than leveling any fighter (fighters take a lot of x.p. to level compared to clerics, thieves, and...yes...magic-users). But once you've switched to the thief class, leveling goes fast (assuming the bard is traveling with a similarly experienced party): the character breezes through the thief levels AND the early levels of bard as well. For players who enjoy rapid advancement...and who are willing to be patient through the slog of the fighter class...the bard pays rich dividends down the road.

But the bard is no walk-in-the-park to play.  As a fighter, you must think like a fighter. As a thief, you must think like a thief. And as a bard, you must be on your toes with regard to which class abilities you use when...it's not an easy task to juggle but for the experienced gamer, that challenge is one to be tackled with relish.

The bard's high number of hit points, excellent Charisma, and automatic language learning ability makes the character an ideal leader and negotiator/spokesman for the party. Half-elf bards (with their initial language selection) are even more so, and players should become used to this style of play (i.e. not slaying everything they encounter on first sight) as early as possible (i.e. even during the fighter portion of their career). Even when pursuing fighter or thief class, it behooves the 1E bard player to think of themselves as a "bard-in-training." The biggest mistake I made as a youth was leaning to hard into the fighter aspect of the class...and then forming habits of acting like a fighter even after I had leveled into bard (and after fighter PCs were outstripping my fighter ability). My characters died a lot, in part because of my violent approach to the game...fortunately, AD&D has a variety of magic to help recover the stupidly dead character.

Some may quibble with the bard's druidic magic and whether or not is thematically appropriate or effective. Personally, I don't care. It functions. It helps describe and define just what a bard IS in terms of an AD&D campaign (their druidic nature/training). And it doesn't allow the character's spell-casting to upstage any of the other party spell-users...druid spells are powerful in the outdoors, but in the dungeon environment, they are probably the least effective of the casters. 

And, yet, a bard will never come close to the power level of a true druid with regard to spell-casting: a 10th level bard has a spell selection of 3/3/3/2 (not counting WIS bonuses), while a druid of the same x.p. total (some 250,000) has a selection of 5/5/3/3/2/1, exclusive of WIS...let's not sniff at the druid's ability to transmute rock to mud and conjure fire elementals!

Far from over-powered, the bard is a true jack-of-all trades: a little of this, a little of that. But with invaluable abilities to the adventuring party, not just with their communication forte, but with their legend lore ability: I find that to be the skill most often used by the bard. And, yet, because of their fighter training (and high hit points) they perform well in melee. And because of their thieving abilities and good saving throws they perform adequately in a "scout" capacity.  For the player who likes to keep busy, the bard can always find something useful to do.

Without upstaging the PCs with dedicated classes.

Not that I worry all that much about "upstaging;" redundancy is a desirable aspect of party building in AD&D, so that when a PC is low on hit points or spells (or dead) another party member can step up to the plate. This is why multi-class demi-humans are so useful, even at higher levels of play (i.e. when they start topping out). The bard is effectively another multi-class character...albeit with a more circuitous route...that has several unique powers and abilities. In 1E, the bard class works well and supplements most parties quite admirably.

Yeah. I love the bard. No, it's not an easy class to play, but it is a useful class to have in a party. It's not the tricksy, obnoxious, humorous thing that it's morphed into over the last 35 years. It provides redundancy AND muscle, subtlety AND spell-craft. Consider how rangers and paladins both (eventually) gain spells; the former at 150,000 x.p., the latter at 350,000 (!!). Now consider the 1E bard is pretty much the same with its delayed spell acquisition, earning its first spell somewhere between 38,000 and 140,000 x.p. Not bad at all.

I understand the philosophical objections some have to the "meta" of the class: how can a character suddenly go from fighter to thief (let alone from thief to bard) without spending several years on training. After all, even a thief is presumed to have had a lengthy apprenticeship, learning their trade, before setting off as an adventurer. My attitude is that the bard is likewise FULLY TRAINED in all its skills: fighting, thieving, "barding." But because of their order (the bardic colleges), they are required to focus their career on certain paths to prove themselves...like requiring a person to spend time as a "resident" before awarding them the title of "doctor." In order to grow in their craft, they must exercise firm discipline and focus on each branch, growing in strength and proficiency as they hone each skill set. It's not that the character "suddenly learns thief abilities;" rather, the character has only reached a point of satisfaction with their fighter focus that they can (at last) turn their attention to the thief aspect of their class. And so on.

I dig it...I really do. But it's not just the flavor of the class that I like...it is the practical way it operates. It fulfills its own niche, a niche un-shared by any other character type. The bard is strong...and it plays well at the table. At least, that's been my experience.

And I've had a lot of experience with the bard.

; )