"it doesn't fit my image of a bard"
"it doesn't fit my image of a bard"
"it doesn't fit my image of a bard"
That's the roleplayers mantra and that is perfectly fine with me. But it
seems kind of silly to want the game changed because of YOUR image of a
class. Lets look at another example:
One of my favorite fantasy characters is Conan. Normally Conan goes around
fighting with a sword and loincloth. Instead of relying on armor to deflect
blows, he uses his dexerity, agility, and skills to avoid being hit. So
lets move that over to Everquest. Cool, I can be a Barbarian Warrior and I
can wield a big 2-hand sword. Now I don't need any armor, as it would only
slow me down making me less able to dodge a blow. Unfortunately in EQ, a
warrior without armor is toast. So should Verant change the game so the
character I want to play fits my image of what it should be?
There are over 50,000 EQ players, each of whom have a slightly different
"image" of what they want to play. There is no way that EQ can match
everyone's image. So instead, Verant created their own images of what they
thought would be best. And it is up to the players to examine Verant's
images and decide what image fits best with what they want to play.
As to bards and armor specifically, why should bards get a bonus when
wearing a lighter armor when no other class (excluding monks) gets this
advantage? Every other class would cry foul on this one. Instead of asking
Verant to change the way AC is calculated for Bards ask for some rare
bard-only leather armor that has an AC slightly less than Plate.
And what is the AC of studded leather and reinforced leather? Once the
trade patch comes thru, it might be more realistic to wear these better
leathers. Would the bards be happy with reinforced leather if it was
halfway between plain leather and plate?
As to binding, if bards could bind, then every other class will want to be
able to bind too. Bind Affinity is very useful. Bards are not underpowered
compared to most other classes. If we get Bind, then other classes will
have to get something to "stay even". Sad, but true, imagine the complaints
from all the non-spellcasting classes if we got Bind.
Wayne
> From: "Kimes, Dean W." <Dean_Kimes@...>
>Subject: Re: Petition and general opinions
>
>Well, this debate has certainly heated things up. Its clear there is an
>easily definable line between the roleplayers and the powergamers here.
>
>I don't like the idea of bards wearing plate personally, it doesn't fit any
>image of the class from a roleplaying perspective as far as I can see, and
>while sure its nice to be able to absorb more damage, it'd be nice to have
a
>bazooka too. Whether bards can ultimately wear plate or not at some point
>is moot to me, I won't 'cause it doesn't fit my image of a bard. to me
that
>image is more important than being as effective as possible. I kinda wish
>they'd institute something similar to the monk's increased AC when wearing
>light armor for bards as an option, not necessarily better than plate or
>even equal, just better than nothing. If not, oh well.
>
>I like the idea of having some bard specific items. Singing swords,
magical
>instruments, any of these would be great! Most of the other classes seem
to
>have items tailored towards them with the exception of bards. Oh yeah sure
>we can use some warrior's castoff magic weapon, but so can a monk, and just
>like a monk, why would we? It'd sure be nice to see something that bard's
>could make better use of than anyone else.
>
>On most of the other issues I'm pretty close to neutral except for binding.
>The way I see a bard, and certainly the way Verant seems to portray them,
>they should travel more than any other character. To have to do this
>without being able to bind is difficult, and one would think a travelling
>minstrel could bind himself anywhere.