At 01:24 PM 2/26/01 -0700, you 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. 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.
nope, i'm saying a good bard player will have a bigger impact on his group than
a good druid player. i agree that the good bard player will have to work harder to
make that impact, but the impact is still there.
the gun analogy doesn't work for me, cuz a gun is obviously more powerful than
a sword, and it is easier to use. we're talking about something more powerful but
harder to use.
> >They're saying, "That's a big grape." and you're responding
> >with, "That's silly, anyone can see that it's one of the smaller
> >fruits."
> >Darkfox
>
>No, they're saying "that's a big grape." and I'm saying, "Yeah, too bad each
>plant only produces 1." For an equal amount of effort, not skill
>necessarily, bards get far less return than other classes.
but, assuming ''size is everything'' (haha) regardless if the plant produces one or 20,
that grape is still a big grape. you're not comparing plants, you're comparing grapes.
> Kitasi