> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 13:36:57 -0600
> From: "Kimes, Dean W." <Dean_Kimes@...>
> Subject: RE: Bards vs Clerics in melee
>
> The mere fact that there would be a MAJOR UPROAR makes it obvious that not
> being able to bind is a far more serious detriment than you would have us
> believe. Binding is bar-none the most powerful ability in the game,
period.
> There is no ability that makes up for it nor any package of abilities that
> does so balance-wise.
You are correct. That is why that Bards alone cannot get this spell. It
wouldn't be fair for every other class if Bards got "the most powerful
ability in the game". If you would have read my note instead of just trying
to flame me, you would have saw that.
You can pull a hundred reasons out of your ass as to why Bards should have
Bind and it won't make one bit of difference. Bards are not going to get
Bind. Instead of beating your head against a brick wall, you should be
asking for something that might have a chance of being implemented. Ask for
the capability to be bound anywhere (or just at Inns) by a caster AND the
ability to be bound in cities by NPCs.
>
> To call Clerics pure casters is a joke. Clerics and Shamans are hybrids
> plain and simple. Both can melee effectively at some levels and sit back
> and cast at other levels. Pure casters are never effective at melee.
There
> are four Pure caster classes in this game. Magician, Enchanter, Wizard,
and
> Necromancer. Clerics, Druids and Shamans are hybrids that lean heavily to
> caster. Shadowknights, Rangers, and Paladins are hybrids that lean
heavily
> towards melee. Balance would suggest that Bards are hybrids that lean
> neither way. We get the worst of both worlds for the most part. The
lousy
> defensive skills of the caster hybrids and the lousy offensive spells of
the
> melee hybrids.
>
> It takes a particular type of person to have fun playing a bard. Bards
can
> be fun to play, no doubt about it, but those who find them so, myself
> included, would have fun playing a bard no matter what the abilities were
> just because that's the type of people we are. I'd just like to be able
to
> have as much fun playing the class I am most attracted to as my friends do
> playing the class they are most attracted to. Right now, character
> balance-wise, that ain't happenin'.
>
> Oh and the Identify spell isn't the only spell those pure casters get at
> that level is it? In fact it isnt even one of 4 per level group but more
> like 1 of 8 or ten. also our 12th level DD does 7 points of damage max.
> Yeah we can cast it a lot if we don't cast anything else since none of our
> spells have the 45+ minute duration of cleric buffs.
Are you just a stupid ass fuck? I am so sick and tired of all these
crybabies who has raised up one character to level 12 and thinks their class
is underpowered. All your facts are so screwed up.
- "12th level DD does 7 points of damage max" WRONG. Every two levels it
does an extra point of damage.
- "45+ minute duration of cleric buffs." WRONG. None of the low-medium
Cleric spells last that long. Maybe at 40+....
- "The lousy defensive skills of the caster hybrids" WRONG. Bard's Defense
caps at 5/level instead of 4/level for Clerics. Bards have the same
defensive ability of Rangers and Paladins until level 17-18 (where Rangers
and Paladins get Parry).
- "lousy offensive spells of the melee hybrids." WRONG. Paladins can only
affect Undeads. And if you stop and restart Bellow, you can get many more
magical attacks than a Paladin and Ranger could ever hope to get off. And
correct me if I am wrong, I thought that the hybrids stop attacking while
they were casting (or maybe their animation doesn't show it). Plus Bards
never run out of mana.
- "To call Clerics pure casters is a joke." WRONG. I never called Clerics
pure casters.
> Kitasi the exasperated
Wayne the frustrated