Primary combat: Mass status effect / buff / debuff abilities through use of music, speech and/or other means of performing. Probably also some advanced evasion like acrobatics.
Primary non-combat: Social skills and lore.
Secondary: Pretty much the same as the thief, but with the exception of the above-mentioned evasion just at the basic level, without the (starting) bonuses a thief might have for thieving skills or some weapons for example.

2e bard was the odd one out. 1e bard was like I'm talking about. 3e had its bard as we're now familiar, but it also had a prestige class that was like the 1e and original bard that was based off multiclassing with druid (which has healing).

Fochlucan Lyrist - http://dnd.arkalseif.info/classes/fochlucan-lyrist/index.html basically a combo druid + wizard + rogue. (Due to the way the system worked, it could be bard + other things, since bard was defined as an arcane caster.)

3e also had the full prestige class bard replacement that forbid the core base class: https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/prestigiousCharacterClasses.htm#prestigeBard (this version doesn't get healing).

Small history: https://dungeonsdragons.fandom.com/wiki/Bard

The monk history series I was talking about is I think this one: https://www.tribality.com/2017/01/26/the-monk-class-part-one/ . In searching his history, I see he also has one for bard (last page, links to all others: https://www.tribality.com/2018/12/05/the-bard-class-part-seven/)

If we allow the generic classes from the same book, then it's quite possible to get a prestige bard with healing.

Generic Spellcaster is basically sorcerer, except:
* One fewer spell per day of the highest level
* Ability to choose any spell from the cleric, druid, and sorcerer/wizard lists
* Bonus feats at the Wizard rate (but no restrictions and the level 1 feat doesn't have to be scribe scroll)
* Can be either arcane or divine, chosen at first level.
* Only one simple weapon proficiency (instead of all of them)

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/genericClasses.htm

There's also generic Warrior and Expert, but those classes aren't as interesting as the generic Spellcaster, at least to me.

lure females into the bush (females cant be bards obviously)
run away fast from fathers/husbands
make enemy sleepy with lullaby
teleport to boss battles and apply background music
total inability to fight
cant cast spells , maybe illusions and thats all

The bard has always been the second best class at everything. Depending on the game mechanics he can cast spells, he can steal, he can lockpick, he can fight using melee or ranged weapons. I guess he should always be the best charisma player, but that's usually the paladin...

wrong game design thats all
paladin as charismatic? lame, religious fanatic warriors are not charismatic at all, paladins should have the least charisma maybe a little more than thieves

as for bard i cant see why they should be able to do those things ,
casting spells? hell no , where did he learn to do that? make no sense
steal hmm maybe , lockpick huge no

You must be right, I guess that's why DnD/Pathfinder never caught on.

im always right

;)

"Charisma (Cha) measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, and leadership." In other words it's not only the ability to charm others but a willpower. So Paladins with 17 CHA makes at least some sense. Yet rolling for Paladin stats is odd, always high charisma and occasionally pretty low on strength is not how I perceive a Paladin (I meant for some old DnD games and games with actual dice, early editions).

In my opinion the true zealots are Monks, they fight with bare hands and no armor, that's what I would call a true faith.

but there is a separate attrib called willpower and high will would make sense, just bad game design
priests should get char at least they have to convince people to join their cult

No, there're not: STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA (17+) - those characteristics were available when a Paladin was introduced (only Human, only Lawful Good). Bad design or not, but there was no other way to put it better at that time. I heard that DND changed quite a lot since then, perhaps it would satisfy your tastes much better in that regard.
I don't know about Priests, if you meant Clerics, they are just holy warriors with maces and spells (Wisdom). Seems to me that Paladins did all the HR work for them.

right wis not will , ive played too much eve online :P
priest or clerics whats the difference?

That hasn't been the case.

I've played plenty of games where the Bard is the best at support roles, or has support abilities, but isn't suitable for other tasks, though having some weak party-wide healing ability (sometimes heal-over-time) isn't unusual. In fact, the specialist is how I've always perceived the Bard, not the generalist that you've been mentioning.

(Although, Wizardry 8's Bard is a bit like you describe, except that they can only cast spells via musical instruments (though note that there's some that cast high level spells, like Nuclear Blast), and they are actually the best at Communication, getting the 25% primary skill bonus to that skill.)
In Wizardry 8, not only can female characters be bards, but they're actually preferred, due to an early game Stamina regen item that only female characters can equip.

(Using a musical instrument consumes a large amount of stamina (instead of using SP as a conventional spellcaster would), so being able to regenerate it is helpful, allowing the character to more easily recover from fatigue unconsciousness, and making music spells basically free outside of combat.)

Where did you get that particular attribute ordering?

(I've always seen DEX and CON before INT and WIS.)

Eye of the Beholder