[Next Message in Time] |
[Previous Message in Time] |
[Next Message in Topic] |
[Previous Message in Topic]
Message ID: 24138
Date: Wed Feb 28 22:34:06 GMT 2001
Author: Jeffrey Sue
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Whats the arguement?
>I'm have to argue semantics here. You effectively argue that we arewhat i mean by ''power'' is how effective a character is, as a whole. this includes in
>powerful - and even "not-underpowered". The power you describe here is one
>that makes it easy for us to get into groups - especially given the small
>number of bards in general. The Druids and Rangers in my guild get
>frustrated at how much more difficult it is for them to get in groups in,
>say Karnor - while I get often get tells asking me if I'm a group (even when
>I don't have LFG flag on).
>Arguing semantically even further - I could argue you have made not a single
>argument towards power - only versatility - but that would pretty much be
>arguing for arguing sake - I think you DO make a good arugment that bards
>aren't underpowered and are consistently powerful vis-à-vis other classes.
>On the other hand, I have yet to see an effective argument by you or anyone
>else that bards are "Over" Powered. To be "Over Powered" would imply that
>the class needs to be "nerfed". If we were overpowered - you would often
>see people say "we can't start this group until we have a bard". I've seen
>this said about clerics, enchanters, even Shaman, but never Bards.
>Slyde