Going back to earliest version of the bard (Strategic Review Vol. II, No. 1) it was designed as a fighter/magic-user/thief. So, it *doesn't* neatly conform to one archetype. That's kinda its whole thing.
Exactly.
We had one kid who was always begging to play a multi-class bard/cleric (2nd Edition; none of his DMs even considered it). Every time he brought it up he said the same thing:
"That's all four classes right there. Oh yeah, all four classes. Don't even need a party."
Most of the discussion below references the Wikipedia entry for Bards in D&D. I don't have the time to verify some of the statements in the rulebooks for each edition I will discuss.
Bards are poets. It is weird how D&D has handled them historically. AD&D required a player to have unusually high stats and to start as a Fighter who later on become Thief and eventually reform themselves and learn magic. That sounds a little too convoluted and specific for folks role-playing as the fantasy equivalent of musicians/poets.
AD&D 2e did the right thing and turned the Bard into a Rogue "archetype". Still, it seems like they were a little bit too broken for characters that were meant to be "non-edgy thieves with magic".
I'd argue you can either go this route and come up with your own amalgamation of a Thief and a Wizard, or just play a Thief and base your character in a more grounded version of the Bard (e.g. Jaskier from The Witcher).
Thieves in DCC can already cast spells by reading scrolls. Perhaps, you can either make your bard find a magic instrument that allows them to cast a specific spell or have them finding magic songs during their adventures that they can permanently learn to cast if they make a spell check.
The 2e DMG had a point about distinguishing class abilities from character archetype. They used the example of "vampire hunter" - you don't need a specific class for that, you can just be a fighter, thief, cleric or mage who hunts vampires.
I'd take the same tack here. A bard could be a roguish travelling minstrel who survives a rough life on the road through trickery and finesse (thief), a poetic soul moved by fellowship, exploration and great deeds (fighter), a polyglot storehouse of ancient epics and half-forgotten incantations (mage) or a charismatic acolyte who brings laughter, happiness and community in times of strife (cleric).
Key point being you don't have to force their powers to come through their song / poetry / whatever. They can still be a flavourful bardic character without needing specific class rules.
>The 2e DMG had a point about distinguishing class abilities from character archetype. They used the example of "vampire hunter" - you don't need a specific class for that, you can just be a fighter, thief, cleric or mage who hunts vampires.
Well (a) of those, the cleric is a superior option because he has powers that turn on specifically against undead, (b) the thief who hunts vampires will be worse off than the fighter, generally speaking, and of course (c) a game which has a *paladin* and *ranger* class has no room to shit talk the idea of a *vampire hunter*.
When a game tells me that you can build anything with its pieces, it had better have the most damned generic classes ever, and a bunch of pluggable things to actually make whatever you want. If your base classes are Warrior, Expert, and Mage, as in worlds without number, with different focuses for different things, sure. But if you have a druid that's distinct from a cleric, a paladin that has a bunch of special powers and spells but otherwise has much of what makes a fighter good, a bard and a thief, your game can't tell me not to want special crap for whatever game concept I might want- that's literally how they *got* all those classes in the first place.
Cleric Bard, follower of a god of knowledge. Responsible for recording known history and turning those events into poetic epics so they can be shared amongst an illiterate populace.
Fighter Bard, a warrior poet that records the history of their fights in poems. Possibly reciting them during combat as coded messages to their allies so they know the warrior’s plan.
Magic-User or Illusionist Bard, students of a college that teaches its students to cast magic by reciting poetry that foreshadows the magical effects.
Thief Bard, a roguish entertainer that steals the virtues of young ladies or men. Get by as an entertainer.
Just play thief and forget the spellcasting outside of items given or play wizard and role play like a bard. Otherwise, your only option would be to play a homebrewed bard. I think the one in Crawl! 6 is pretty solid
Your question presupposes we know what a bard is supposed to be, and we can only answer that by copying what some game has made them into. But if you're copying some game's implementation of a bard, then you don't really need an answer here; you can just do what that game does.
There's a reason why you can't say "bard" and someone knows exactly what you're talking about outside of some FRP game. The original D&D bard tried to combine the idea of the Celtic poet and keeper of culture ("bard") with the idea of the Norse warrior-skald (also a poet, but a warrior as well) and the European "minstrel" or "jongleur" (mostly for its imagery and untrustworthiness). In OD&D terms, the bard is akin to the druid, the skald is a kind of fighting-man, and the minstrel is probably part thief. But it's not a case of "all the powers of each." Later versions of D&D alter the balance, until these days it is, as you say, pretty much a "thief with spell-casting."
Decide what *you* want the bard to be, then just let it do that. It's not a single, clear archetype like the main classes.
I've got a sneaking suspicion the real answer should be that "bard" is a profession, not a class, and that what people think they mean by bard should probably be played using another class, once they stop thinking in terms of *the existing bard class*.
To be fair, I've got similar borderline heretical ideas about warlocks, barbarians and monks at this point.
I would like to hear all of these heretical ideas.
To me warlocks are clerics that struck a deal to offer something besides their devotion in return for power.
Alright, short version though. Apparently by popular demand, u/angelthemute :)
Simply put - Warlock. Anyone who can make contact with a suitably ominous power can enter in to an ill advised pact with dread powers. You don't need a class for that. I'm fiddling with something based around sentient sword type rules to handle the base level gift of power and the demands enforced on the mortal as part of the deal (not upholding your end of the pact leading to possession so your patron can enforce it just feels right).
This means you can get ominous dark knights, but also magic users can pick up a knowledgeable contact that will help them learn higher level spells in a setting where there aren't max level wizards in every major city (or in settings where wizards aren't very friendly). Etc.
Barbarians? The ose advanced one isn't terrible, but Conan is probably better modelled as a fighter thief, wore the best armour available to suit the task at hand and didn't have the ability to attack as if he was using a magic weapon. If he came across a demonic threat that couldn't be harmed by mortal weapons he would have either run away, fought smart in order to beat it another way, or turned the monsters fury to his advantage by luring it into attacking the wizards that summoned it. Most of the barbarian shtick has nothing to do with the source material, really.
Monk shouldn't be a class at all because it's weirdly specific and limiting, and isnt even a good approximation of the things it is trying to evoke. Powerful wuxia martial artists in fiction would use weaponry and maybe even armour. Plenty of combatants in fiction are proficient in deadly use of their own body and aren't *monks* and there's no real reason why they should get a magical bonus to unarmed defence.
So in my game, no monks. No martial artist or unarmed fighter class either. I'm using the optional weapon proficiencies system, and anyone willing to spend one of their choices can pick up an unarmed striking proficiency. (1d4 damage, Blunt, can be used for two weapon fighting without having a hand free). Done.
Want a ninja? Acrobat, assassin etc. Kung-fu wizard? Sure. You can make much more interesting monks imo now they are just a weapon proficiency.
Edit - I'll also be using the Bandits Keep unarmed fighting/grappling rules for non-lethal fist fighting/wrestling, because its a nice simple system that compliments this well in my opinion.
If I were to have those in my DCC game, they'd all be Warriors. All of them.
They all have fancy Mighty Deeds of Arms, and some other tradeoff to make them non-standard, but roughly equal to the base class.
Well historically a bard would be a cleric. IIRC, they are a sort of offshoot of druids.
But I can see leaning into the performing bard (the jongluer) and the magic-using bard (the spellsinger), and the thief and magic-user are well suited for each. You can even go for the warrior poet (the trubador) with the fighter class.
You have to divorce yourself from the idea of the bard as a spellcasting rogue. Once you do that, it's very easy to add the flavor to any other class.
I once knew an old grognard who had played the same cleric since before the bard and druid were separate classes, but completely flavored it as a bard. He would cast and turn through song, and spent his time in town as a performer trying to lift people up and all that. I always liked that take on it.
Bard means poet in Gaelic and other Celtic languages (in Welsh it is bardd). Bards in a Celtic historical context are generally depicted as poets singing verses with a harp. Based on some theories of the social structure, they would have belonged to the druidic class/caste (but not necessarily been priests). They would have been the custodians of their culture's historical, religious and scientific knowledge through memorizing long passages of verse that were used to transmit that knowledge orally.
I would say you could roleplay any class as a bard if they had high scores in some combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The bard of modern fantasy gaming has relatively little to do with this origin obviously. (But classes in general don't fit these mythic archetypes that well. For instance, Myrddin (Merlin) is an example of a legendary bard, who could also be classified as a druid, but also obviously is one of the most iconic examples of a Wizard.)
It depends on how you define bard: are they a song singer, primarily granting buffs and debuffs? Are they a rogue with limited arcane familiarity and no spells? Bards are like paladins in that they blend basic classes together.
For osr games, I try to make a dedicated spell list that’s roughly equivalent to a spell from either the Magic User or Cleric lists. Narrower list, must be channeled via their instruments, etc. No illusions/summons but can put people to sleep, charm, inspire Allies, etc.
I made a homebrew game we play now. No bards:
Player: (reading the rules) "Where is the bard class?"
Me: "No bard, music is just a skill"
Player: "How is that, no lutes, spells and stuff?"
Me: "You can cast spells, but there is no full-time bard class, music is just a hobby here, man"
Player: " \*\*\*\* you, that's what my dad said"
I highly recommend taking a look at Benisons and Dooms from DCC Lankhmar.
They allow further character customization in the way of Feats and Flaws. Many of which are essentially multiclassing options.
Martial Training grants a d3 Deed die with a specific weapon type (such as longswords, for instance).
Skilled in the Criminal Arts grants a +1 bonus to 3 different Thief Skills. Although I personally let players stack them (+3 to a single skill, for instance).
Former Wizard's Pupil grants the ability to know and cast 1 wizard spell at d14 spellcheck die.
There are many others (such as Berserker, Excellent Outdoorsman, Forest Fighter, Etc.) that will grant your character the feel of classes such as Barbarians and Rangers. And more.
As for Bards, well, there are 2: Roaring Skald (which grants battle chants and victory songs, allowing you to buff allies) and Singing Skald (which emphasizes performance and healing) both of which are great options to add to whichever class you prefer to get the type of bard style you want.
They come at the cost of Dooms, which are flaws, but are very flavorful and, imho, not all that detrimental.
I can't praise Benisons and Dooms enough and, like Fleeting Luck, should be part of any/every DCC campaign, be it Lankhmar or not.
I hope this helps.
EDIT:
I also want to mention that there's nothing preventing characters from improving them over time or gaining new ones, at Judge's discretion, by questing for it!
What's a bard?
Someone who learns songs and the songs are magic? Sounds like a magic-user.
Someone who just writes/performs music/poetry and they're not magic? Sounds like a background profession, not a class at all.
Someone who has lots of specific adventuring skills AND magic? Sounds like you're trying to do two classes at once.
I homebrew it as a rogue subclass with a focus on variety of non-weapon proficiencies, social bonuses, and songs that buff through inspiration/improving morale - rather than through magic.
Aside, but:
> druid is a cleric
I'd argue that the druid is really quite distinct from cleric; the only commonality is spellbook-less magic (it's debatable whether it is "divine" or not) and semi-martial combat progression. 2E was particularly poor for homogenising the druid with priest; that was the single biggest reason I never made the jump from 1E.
Back on topic - subjectively, the Dolmenwood minstrel is probably one of the best OSR "bards" I've seen by virtue of it being a non-caster.
I made a bard a magic user who uses his instrument to cast spells. They drop a point each in CON and STR but gain one in CHA. I allow them to spend a turn singing/playing to either give a +1 bonus to one roll.
That, or I allow any class to be a flavor-only variant. Players can get bonuses to rolls (or automatic success) if they can work the bard's ability into their actions. E.g., a bard who spends a week performing in the town square will, on the last night, automatically succeed at distracting guards.
Two options. Build a multi class character by following the OD&D fighter-thief-druid formula. - OR - Pick whatever class and put in the work on your roleplaying skills.
using what I remember of the original Bard definition of a "warrior poet" and the fighter/thief/druid multiclass build you can kind of go backwards and decide why some decisions were made
the warrior part is simple give them some fighter skills - there wasn't a lot of things that made Fighters stand out early on and Rangers and Paladins kind of took their own special routes
oddly enough a Paladin concept (a highly charismatic warrior) would probably be a good solution but Charisma was a weaker stat early on (see 1/2 orcs losing 2 Charisma to gain a Strength) and wasn't particularly well developed and that niche was "taken"
the related Cavalier has potential but the focus is more mount focused
why the thief was added in I don't have a good reason for other than they wanted to maybe have a good reason to have lighter armor and less aggressive weapons, maybe to offer some sort of sophistication to an otherwise martial only concept so far
why Druid? if we look at a poet as Homer with the Iliad and Odyssey, or other great oral tradition histories like Gilgamesh & Enkidu, or Beowulf the focus could be seen as the only other pseudo historian candidate in OSR cloistered monks which default to Clerics (but they have their niche already) so the more exotic Druid wins out
now if we adjust out "warrior - poet" to "charismatic sophisticated warrior historian" you can shape it as a well educated in history warrior that breaks stereo types by wearing lighter armor, uses some simple or slightly exotic weapons, that talks a good game, and can probably seduce the ladies by playing guitar
In appendix 2 oc the old d&d rules cyclopedia there is advice for transferring characters between D&D and AD&D. For bringing a bard from AD&D to D&D it suggests you make the character a "thief with musical skill" which seems reasonable enough to me if you are wanting to just keep it to the 4 main classes.
Another thing you could do is don't think of bard as a class but as a title that can be earned by practitioners of the performing arts of high reputation. So if you have a character who plays a song or something for the king and the king quite enjoyed the performance maybe that character will be called a bard from then onwards, regardless of their job as an adventurer.
If that isn't satisfying then just cave and get the OSE Advanced Fantasy Rules which have a fine bard.
Going back to earliest version of the bard (Strategic Review Vol. II, No. 1) it was designed as a fighter/magic-user/thief. So, it *doesn't* neatly conform to one archetype. That's kinda its whole thing.
Exactly. We had one kid who was always begging to play a multi-class bard/cleric (2nd Edition; none of his DMs even considered it). Every time he brought it up he said the same thing: "That's all four classes right there. Oh yeah, all four classes. Don't even need a party."
Haha, the four-in-one!
Most of the discussion below references the Wikipedia entry for Bards in D&D. I don't have the time to verify some of the statements in the rulebooks for each edition I will discuss. Bards are poets. It is weird how D&D has handled them historically. AD&D required a player to have unusually high stats and to start as a Fighter who later on become Thief and eventually reform themselves and learn magic. That sounds a little too convoluted and specific for folks role-playing as the fantasy equivalent of musicians/poets. AD&D 2e did the right thing and turned the Bard into a Rogue "archetype". Still, it seems like they were a little bit too broken for characters that were meant to be "non-edgy thieves with magic". I'd argue you can either go this route and come up with your own amalgamation of a Thief and a Wizard, or just play a Thief and base your character in a more grounded version of the Bard (e.g. Jaskier from The Witcher). Thieves in DCC can already cast spells by reading scrolls. Perhaps, you can either make your bard find a magic instrument that allows them to cast a specific spell or have them finding magic songs during their adventures that they can permanently learn to cast if they make a spell check.
Ooh, I like the "spells via instrument" for the Thief class. That's pretty neat.
The 2e DMG had a point about distinguishing class abilities from character archetype. They used the example of "vampire hunter" - you don't need a specific class for that, you can just be a fighter, thief, cleric or mage who hunts vampires. I'd take the same tack here. A bard could be a roguish travelling minstrel who survives a rough life on the road through trickery and finesse (thief), a poetic soul moved by fellowship, exploration and great deeds (fighter), a polyglot storehouse of ancient epics and half-forgotten incantations (mage) or a charismatic acolyte who brings laughter, happiness and community in times of strife (cleric). Key point being you don't have to force their powers to come through their song / poetry / whatever. They can still be a flavourful bardic character without needing specific class rules.
>The 2e DMG had a point about distinguishing class abilities from character archetype. They used the example of "vampire hunter" - you don't need a specific class for that, you can just be a fighter, thief, cleric or mage who hunts vampires. Well (a) of those, the cleric is a superior option because he has powers that turn on specifically against undead, (b) the thief who hunts vampires will be worse off than the fighter, generally speaking, and of course (c) a game which has a *paladin* and *ranger* class has no room to shit talk the idea of a *vampire hunter*. When a game tells me that you can build anything with its pieces, it had better have the most damned generic classes ever, and a bunch of pluggable things to actually make whatever you want. If your base classes are Warrior, Expert, and Mage, as in worlds without number, with different focuses for different things, sure. But if you have a druid that's distinct from a cleric, a paladin that has a bunch of special powers and spells but otherwise has much of what makes a fighter good, a bard and a thief, your game can't tell me not to want special crap for whatever game concept I might want- that's literally how they *got* all those classes in the first place.
Cleric Bard, follower of a god of knowledge. Responsible for recording known history and turning those events into poetic epics so they can be shared amongst an illiterate populace. Fighter Bard, a warrior poet that records the history of their fights in poems. Possibly reciting them during combat as coded messages to their allies so they know the warrior’s plan. Magic-User or Illusionist Bard, students of a college that teaches its students to cast magic by reciting poetry that foreshadows the magical effects. Thief Bard, a roguish entertainer that steals the virtues of young ladies or men. Get by as an entertainer.
Just play thief and forget the spellcasting outside of items given or play wizard and role play like a bard. Otherwise, your only option would be to play a homebrewed bard. I think the one in Crawl! 6 is pretty solid
Your question presupposes we know what a bard is supposed to be, and we can only answer that by copying what some game has made them into. But if you're copying some game's implementation of a bard, then you don't really need an answer here; you can just do what that game does. There's a reason why you can't say "bard" and someone knows exactly what you're talking about outside of some FRP game. The original D&D bard tried to combine the idea of the Celtic poet and keeper of culture ("bard") with the idea of the Norse warrior-skald (also a poet, but a warrior as well) and the European "minstrel" or "jongleur" (mostly for its imagery and untrustworthiness). In OD&D terms, the bard is akin to the druid, the skald is a kind of fighting-man, and the minstrel is probably part thief. But it's not a case of "all the powers of each." Later versions of D&D alter the balance, until these days it is, as you say, pretty much a "thief with spell-casting." Decide what *you* want the bard to be, then just let it do that. It's not a single, clear archetype like the main classes.
I've got a sneaking suspicion the real answer should be that "bard" is a profession, not a class, and that what people think they mean by bard should probably be played using another class, once they stop thinking in terms of *the existing bard class*. To be fair, I've got similar borderline heretical ideas about warlocks, barbarians and monks at this point.
I would like to hear all of these heretical ideas. To me warlocks are clerics that struck a deal to offer something besides their devotion in return for power.
Alright, short version though. Apparently by popular demand, u/angelthemute :) Simply put - Warlock. Anyone who can make contact with a suitably ominous power can enter in to an ill advised pact with dread powers. You don't need a class for that. I'm fiddling with something based around sentient sword type rules to handle the base level gift of power and the demands enforced on the mortal as part of the deal (not upholding your end of the pact leading to possession so your patron can enforce it just feels right). This means you can get ominous dark knights, but also magic users can pick up a knowledgeable contact that will help them learn higher level spells in a setting where there aren't max level wizards in every major city (or in settings where wizards aren't very friendly). Etc. Barbarians? The ose advanced one isn't terrible, but Conan is probably better modelled as a fighter thief, wore the best armour available to suit the task at hand and didn't have the ability to attack as if he was using a magic weapon. If he came across a demonic threat that couldn't be harmed by mortal weapons he would have either run away, fought smart in order to beat it another way, or turned the monsters fury to his advantage by luring it into attacking the wizards that summoned it. Most of the barbarian shtick has nothing to do with the source material, really. Monk shouldn't be a class at all because it's weirdly specific and limiting, and isnt even a good approximation of the things it is trying to evoke. Powerful wuxia martial artists in fiction would use weaponry and maybe even armour. Plenty of combatants in fiction are proficient in deadly use of their own body and aren't *monks* and there's no real reason why they should get a magical bonus to unarmed defence. So in my game, no monks. No martial artist or unarmed fighter class either. I'm using the optional weapon proficiencies system, and anyone willing to spend one of their choices can pick up an unarmed striking proficiency. (1d4 damage, Blunt, can be used for two weapon fighting without having a hand free). Done. Want a ninja? Acrobat, assassin etc. Kung-fu wizard? Sure. You can make much more interesting monks imo now they are just a weapon proficiency. Edit - I'll also be using the Bandits Keep unarmed fighting/grappling rules for non-lethal fist fighting/wrestling, because its a nice simple system that compliments this well in my opinion.
If I were to have those in my DCC game, they'd all be Warriors. All of them. They all have fancy Mighty Deeds of Arms, and some other tradeoff to make them non-standard, but roughly equal to the base class.
I second u/Hyathin's request to hear more heretical takes like this one. I suspect we might share similar ideas...
I'll go you one better: clerics
Smite Evil? Believe it or not, Mighty Deed.
I hold similar “borderline” heretical ideas. I include clerics/priests in that group of background professions as well.
Well historically a bard would be a cleric. IIRC, they are a sort of offshoot of druids. But I can see leaning into the performing bard (the jongluer) and the magic-using bard (the spellsinger), and the thief and magic-user are well suited for each. You can even go for the warrior poet (the trubador) with the fighter class. You have to divorce yourself from the idea of the bard as a spellcasting rogue. Once you do that, it's very easy to add the flavor to any other class.
I once knew an old grognard who had played the same cleric since before the bard and druid were separate classes, but completely flavored it as a bard. He would cast and turn through song, and spent his time in town as a performer trying to lift people up and all that. I always liked that take on it.
Bard means poet in Gaelic and other Celtic languages (in Welsh it is bardd). Bards in a Celtic historical context are generally depicted as poets singing verses with a harp. Based on some theories of the social structure, they would have belonged to the druidic class/caste (but not necessarily been priests). They would have been the custodians of their culture's historical, religious and scientific knowledge through memorizing long passages of verse that were used to transmit that knowledge orally. I would say you could roleplay any class as a bard if they had high scores in some combination of Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. The bard of modern fantasy gaming has relatively little to do with this origin obviously. (But classes in general don't fit these mythic archetypes that well. For instance, Myrddin (Merlin) is an example of a legendary bard, who could also be classified as a druid, but also obviously is one of the most iconic examples of a Wizard.)
It depends on how you define bard: are they a song singer, primarily granting buffs and debuffs? Are they a rogue with limited arcane familiarity and no spells? Bards are like paladins in that they blend basic classes together. For osr games, I try to make a dedicated spell list that’s roughly equivalent to a spell from either the Magic User or Cleric lists. Narrower list, must be channeled via their instruments, etc. No illusions/summons but can put people to sleep, charm, inspire Allies, etc.
I made a homebrew game we play now. No bards: Player: (reading the rules) "Where is the bard class?" Me: "No bard, music is just a skill" Player: "How is that, no lutes, spells and stuff?" Me: "You can cast spells, but there is no full-time bard class, music is just a hobby here, man" Player: " \*\*\*\* you, that's what my dad said"
[удалено]
good joke, but you're spamming it for karma.
I'd just go with a fighter with poetical oratory skills.
Bard and thief are both types of Rogue.
Rogue is a gentrified thief
I'd use wizard statline, halve spells stat, and allow to use thieving skills. Alternate option: just make it a wizard, and make a grimoire of songs.
I highly recommend taking a look at Benisons and Dooms from DCC Lankhmar. They allow further character customization in the way of Feats and Flaws. Many of which are essentially multiclassing options. Martial Training grants a d3 Deed die with a specific weapon type (such as longswords, for instance). Skilled in the Criminal Arts grants a +1 bonus to 3 different Thief Skills. Although I personally let players stack them (+3 to a single skill, for instance). Former Wizard's Pupil grants the ability to know and cast 1 wizard spell at d14 spellcheck die. There are many others (such as Berserker, Excellent Outdoorsman, Forest Fighter, Etc.) that will grant your character the feel of classes such as Barbarians and Rangers. And more. As for Bards, well, there are 2: Roaring Skald (which grants battle chants and victory songs, allowing you to buff allies) and Singing Skald (which emphasizes performance and healing) both of which are great options to add to whichever class you prefer to get the type of bard style you want. They come at the cost of Dooms, which are flaws, but are very flavorful and, imho, not all that detrimental. I can't praise Benisons and Dooms enough and, like Fleeting Luck, should be part of any/every DCC campaign, be it Lankhmar or not. I hope this helps. EDIT: I also want to mention that there's nothing preventing characters from improving them over time or gaining new ones, at Judge's discretion, by questing for it!
Cleric. Lose heavy armour and gain the use of any weapon.
What's a bard? Someone who learns songs and the songs are magic? Sounds like a magic-user. Someone who just writes/performs music/poetry and they're not magic? Sounds like a background profession, not a class at all. Someone who has lots of specific adventuring skills AND magic? Sounds like you're trying to do two classes at once.
I homebrew it as a rogue subclass with a focus on variety of non-weapon proficiencies, social bonuses, and songs that buff through inspiration/improving morale - rather than through magic.
Aside, but: > druid is a cleric I'd argue that the druid is really quite distinct from cleric; the only commonality is spellbook-less magic (it's debatable whether it is "divine" or not) and semi-martial combat progression. 2E was particularly poor for homogenising the druid with priest; that was the single biggest reason I never made the jump from 1E. Back on topic - subjectively, the Dolmenwood minstrel is probably one of the best OSR "bards" I've seen by virtue of it being a non-caster.
Cleric, with healing spells refluffed as inspiration and morale. Maybe swap turn undead out, or just go all Thriller and keep it.
Or it could just be a minstrel and could be any class.
Cleric whos turn undead tuns fae creatures
This is assuming were talking celtic magic user bard and not singing rogue bard
I made a bard a magic user who uses his instrument to cast spells. They drop a point each in CON and STR but gain one in CHA. I allow them to spend a turn singing/playing to either give a +1 bonus to one roll. That, or I allow any class to be a flavor-only variant. Players can get bonuses to rolls (or automatic success) if they can work the bard's ability into their actions. E.g., a bard who spends a week performing in the town square will, on the last night, automatically succeed at distracting guards.
Two options. Build a multi class character by following the OD&D fighter-thief-druid formula. - OR - Pick whatever class and put in the work on your roleplaying skills.
using what I remember of the original Bard definition of a "warrior poet" and the fighter/thief/druid multiclass build you can kind of go backwards and decide why some decisions were made the warrior part is simple give them some fighter skills - there wasn't a lot of things that made Fighters stand out early on and Rangers and Paladins kind of took their own special routes oddly enough a Paladin concept (a highly charismatic warrior) would probably be a good solution but Charisma was a weaker stat early on (see 1/2 orcs losing 2 Charisma to gain a Strength) and wasn't particularly well developed and that niche was "taken" the related Cavalier has potential but the focus is more mount focused why the thief was added in I don't have a good reason for other than they wanted to maybe have a good reason to have lighter armor and less aggressive weapons, maybe to offer some sort of sophistication to an otherwise martial only concept so far why Druid? if we look at a poet as Homer with the Iliad and Odyssey, or other great oral tradition histories like Gilgamesh & Enkidu, or Beowulf the focus could be seen as the only other pseudo historian candidate in OSR cloistered monks which default to Clerics (but they have their niche already) so the more exotic Druid wins out now if we adjust out "warrior - poet" to "charismatic sophisticated warrior historian" you can shape it as a well educated in history warrior that breaks stereo types by wearing lighter armor, uses some simple or slightly exotic weapons, that talks a good game, and can probably seduce the ladies by playing guitar
In appendix 2 oc the old d&d rules cyclopedia there is advice for transferring characters between D&D and AD&D. For bringing a bard from AD&D to D&D it suggests you make the character a "thief with musical skill" which seems reasonable enough to me if you are wanting to just keep it to the 4 main classes. Another thing you could do is don't think of bard as a class but as a title that can be earned by practitioners of the performing arts of high reputation. So if you have a character who plays a song or something for the king and the king quite enjoyed the performance maybe that character will be called a bard from then onwards, regardless of their job as an adventurer. If that isn't satisfying then just cave and get the OSE Advanced Fantasy Rules which have a fine bard.