Very long post, please ignore if you're bored by this thread already. This will be my last post on this thread in a public forum. If Kitari wishes to respond here, I don't mind, if I have anything to say I will respond directly. (I don't want Kitari or anything thinking I have to have the last word so feel free to respond here. I do feel I need to respond to this particular post in the public forum since that is where I believe I've been wrongly labelled)
>Well, this debate has certainly heated things up. Its clear there is an
>easily definable line between the roleplayers and the powergamers here.
>I'm not sure where you draw this line.... Please define it a little more so
>I can figure out if you've pre-classified me as a powergamer or a
>roleplayer.
I was speaking in general about some prior posts, so at that point hadn't
'classified' you.
At that point. But it's clear that you now HAVE classified me. Because I choose to wear plate. Silly, really.
>From your message, I believe you're talking about the Platemail
>issue, but please correct me if I'm wrong. If so, I believe you're
>labelling me as a powergamer, because, as I've previously mentioned, I
>believe our class is Balanced with the use of Plate in mind. I believe
>that a Bard that doesn't use Plate is like a Monk that doesn't use his punch
>because "Every class can punch".
Ok, can now classify you as a powergamer, since you plainly imply that
anyone who doesn't take the utmost advantage of the abilities of their class
is stupid, so we should all wear plate and all use the weapon combo that
numericaly deals the most damage per unit time. so in real life no one
should drive red cars by your logic since they function as well as any other
and statistically get the most speeding tickets.
I believe what I said was, "I believe that a Bard that doesn't use Plate is like a Monk that doesn't use his punch because "Every class can punch"." Not sure where I imply stupidity, since I've always felt that it's every persons opinion to do what's right for them. I'm making a comparison, not a judgement. I'm telling you MY opinion on something, what I think about it, but I believe I stop short of making any judgements. Now of course the quoted part itself was trying to illustrate a point with something that was said previous, but I didn't save the previous emails, so I can't illustrate it clearer now. Now, on the other hand, you HAVE made judgement on me, assuming I am a powergamer because I take the utmost advantage of my class. I guess you should define Powergaming then, since I don't see how this has anything to do with it. And it's my personal opinion, that a person's decision to wear plate or not has nothing to do with being a powergamer. Would a powergamer wear plate? Yup, I'm sure they would. But common logic does not mean that the opposite works. Plate wearers are powergamers. That's incorrect. And that's what I believe you suggested. I believe roleplaying reasons for wearing plate HAVE been suggested, but I don't believe that a person has to have a roleplaying reason to wear plate. Not in this game. Not in Verant's world. This fantasy world was created in someone else's mind. I roleplay my character in that world. I use the rules of that world to roleplay my character. I don't try to redefine the world, I don't argue with the world, my character has the strengths and powers and abilities that were defined for him. Kind of like some of a real persons abilities and strengths were defined when they were born. Now, people are free to go against their abilities.... For example, let's say I was born with absolutely NO musical talent. I could choose to become a musician, struggling all the way. I love the idea of being a musician but I don't excell at it. I fight against the no musical talent and I end up being a fairly good musician. No rock star, but I satisfy myself. That would be wonderful. And if that was my dream, all the more power to me. But, if instead I saw that I sucked at music and I decided to become a doctor instead, I was much more suited to being a doctor, that was where my strengths were. Now, which is right and which is wrong? Neither. Both are valid, both are right. Both are individual's choices. I, personally, would choose to be the doctor instead of the musician in this example... I like to be successful at what I do. I use my talents to the best of my abilities and try to be the best person I can. Does that make me a "Real Life Powergamer"? I play games the same way. I play by the rules of the game and immerse myself there. Logic and reason be damned. "How can a bard play a Mandolin with Plate Gloves?" God, I have no freakin clue in this world... But, when I get into the game, I don't question Verant's design. And here's my point, I DO NOT HAVE TO! It does not make me a powergamer by accepting things as they are and bettering myself. It does not mean I do not roleplay if I play within the system! No matter how YOU feel about the system and how it fits into YOUR roleplaying. To insinuate, no, to directly SAY that someone is not a roleplayer, they are a powergamer, because they choose to wear plate, and you don't, is absolutely wrong. Here I will make a judgement. It's stupid.
If you expect me to live by your rules you've created, then please define them so I might have a chance. I believe I'm living by Verant's rule in EQ, tho.
BTW, I drive a RED car and I've gotten DOZENS of tickets in it.
>Now, if that doesn't fit YOUR image of a
>Bard, then you're more than free to take the AC hit and not wear it....
>Please don't tell those of us that do choose to wear plate that we're
>wrong, or aren't roleplayers. I am roleplaying the Bard class as Verant designed
>it.
Never said they were wrong, in fact plainly said I don't care but I wont,
and no you are taking the utmost advantage of the class as designed, no
eveidence you are roleplaying it just because you wear plate.
No, you didn't say they were wrong, that's my mistake. You said they were powergamers and I'll go out on a limb here and say that you implied it was wrong.
Yes, I am taking advantage of (Actually, I'm PLAYING) the class as designed and no, that doesn't make me a roleplayer either. But it also doesn't make me NOT a roleplayer. You can pick and choose as my quality of roleplaying all you want, but NOT on whether I choose to wear plate or not. Wearing plate has nothing to do with it. It's not even a consideration. You choose the plate issue as part of YOUR roleplaying. I have NO problem with that. Just don't shove that choice down my throat.
>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.
>Bard's are Jack of All trades - Borrowing from many different classes.
>We're different than monks, Monks have their own set of skills. Ours are
>part fighter, part rogue, part magical, part of many things. I'll use any
>weapon or skill that's available to me, that betters my class.
Ok, not much to complain about here, but by this logic shadowknights are
just warriors mixed with necromancers, why do they have shadowknight only
weapons?
I have nothing against Bard only weapons. They'd be great to have. It'd make the class much more distinct. Shadowknights have them, Paladins do, even Rangers. But, would I use a Bard only weapon if I found "some warrior's castoff magic weapon" to be better? Hell no, I wouldn't. I'd hang the Bard only weapon on my wall as a memento, and go squash Lady Vox with the warrior weapon. Monks happen to be better WITHOUT a weapon at all... That's why they wouldn't use "some warrior's castoff magic weapon"... not because it doesn't suit their roleplaying of a monk.
>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.
>I am wholeheartedly against Bind for Bards. No other Hybrid gets this.
>This is reserved for the pure casters. Yes it would be nice to have, but
>"it'd be nice to have a bazooka too."
Ummm, no other hybrid gets pick locks either, so they should probably take
that away too by your logic.
Please stop making judgements on me and assuming my logic. Maybe I should rephrase what I mean. Simply, I believe Bind should be reserved for the Pure Spellcasting classes. I am happy with the skills I have... Actually, that's not correct either... I live with the skills I have.
>I somewhat agreed with everything on the petition but the Bind and the Exp
>issues. I was a little bit peeved to see the petition ask for a bonus in
>ability (Bind) that makes the class stronger, and at the same time ask for
>less of an exp hit.... We are hybrids. Hybrids have a penalty. We can
tank and cast spells with our songs.... We get a penalty in Exp for that and we
>should. As far as soloing... Verant has always said this is a group game.
>I don't level any noticeably slower than my GF (High Elf Magician) who I
>group with on EVERY kill. So in groups, as Verant designed the game, it's
>been my exp that we're not really disadvantaged at all. While Bards CAN
>solo and DO solo, I believe Bards belong in a party. If someone chooses to
>solo, then they should take the extra penalties for doing so in a group
>based game.
Best part of your piece hands down. While I disagree on the bind issue, I
too think we do not suffer from an overly large experience penalty. I keep
up with the human monk I most often group with and do better soloing against
some critters than he does. In groups he ends up taking most of the damage
since he deals out so much and wears no armor to speak of. I have not seen
any real evidence we advance much slower than the average character,
although many bards are wood elves and wood elves advance slower than
humans. But then why would you want to be a human and live in some smelly
stone city, yech! Oops, sorry let my character run away with itself there,
no offense intended to our human readership.
I personally don't take offense to much of anything (And no, I did not think you directed this last part at me directly). One of the things I do take offense to is someone labelling me without basis. I know I shouldn't care, but I do. And that's one of my weaknesses...
BTW, I am not a doctor and I do have some, not much, but some talent in music. I am poor at telling stories, tho.
Blitz Krieg
Darkfox Reven'tsol - Xegony