--- In eqbards@y..., "Kimes, Dean W." <dean_kimes@d...> wrote:
> >When someone says Bards are overpowered, they're making a
comparison of a well played Bard vs. a well played <whatever class>.
That comparison _ignores_ that Bards are inherently more difficult to
play well.
> >When you're saying it's ludicrous, you're adding difficulty in
playing the class into the equation of a Class' power. It's 2
different comparisons, really.
> That's definitely an elitist point of view. You might as well say
that a good bard player is inherently a better player than a good
druid player can ever be because a bard is so much harder to play.
You already said exactly that, "Anybody can hit autoattack and the
occasional taunt, bash, or kick hotkey." I'd suggest that is a more
elitist comment than anything I said.
My view of "Class Power" ignores difficulty of playing altogether.
You can reasonably make either argument (including or ignoring Class
Power), but just make sure you're discussing the same ground rules
when you do.
> By your definition a gun isn't more powerful than a sword, because
a sword is harder to use effectively. If it is easier to accomplish
the same thing with two different tools, but is easier with tool A
than with tool B, then tool A is by definition more powerful than
Tool B.
By my definition, a gun is more powerful than a sword, because when
used properly (ignoring the difficulty), the gun is more powerful.
You're saying we should incorporate "level of difficulty" into the
equation, not me. Those saying "Bards are overpowered" are actually
saying it's not only harder with Tool A, but when used right, it's
more powerful, too. You're saying Tool A is harder to use than Tool
B, so Tool B is more powerful.
> For an equal amount of effort, not skill necessarily, bards get far
less return than other classes.
I'm saying, "Played to it's fullest potential Bards can do far more
than other classes."
Darkfox
p.s. Please stop making me agree with J.S. :)