[Next Message in Time] | [Previous Message in Time] | [Next Message in Topic] | [Previous Message in Topic]

Message ID: 477
Date: Wed May 5 15:46:35 BST 1999
Author: John Robertson
Subject: Re: Twisting and Missing Notes


Allen Ng wrote:

> From: "Allen Ng" <AllenNg@...>
>
> Just out of curiousity, why did your friend retire his 30th level bard?
> I've found leveling a bard (particularly soloing) to be pretty easy, and I'm
> 17th level now, but I've had this feeling that bards at the higher levels
> don't quite cut it compared to other classes. I've heard of how great high
> wizards are, and I've seen a Necro solo hill giants and griffons with his
> pet, but does anyone know how well high levels bards compare to other
> classes?

He quit because he was angry that a GM would not help him recover his corpse.
The corpse had moved because of a bug and was embedded deep in a wall inside
Runnyeye. As much as this, well, sucks, personally I feel he really
overreacted. Nobody has ever guaranteed that you would be able to get help
recovering a corpse, even if it was due to a bug.

As to high level bards being on par with other high level classes, it's not
really a fair question. If you're comparing soloing players, the bard is
terrible. Then again, at very high levels, only druids and wizards can really
solo. At medium high levels, magicians and necros can solo, and rangers,
paladins and shadowknights can as well. Anyone else starts having real trouble.

A high level bard doesn't have the pure power of a high level wizard who can do
1100 damage with one spell, but there isn't a high level wizard around who
doesn't want a high level bard grouped with them. Asmodean, the first level 50
in beta could dish out 4000+ points of damage before running out of mana, but
then he had to meditate for over 10 minutes to get his mana back. If he was
grouped with a bard, his mana regeneration time would be lessened considerably,
and he'd have all kinds of other support (healing, speed, protection, you all
know what I mean).

Jyzan