Ring of Wizardry - why isn't it usable by bards?

Sed

I tried searching the forum to see if this has been up before, but the search function still pretty much sucks, so I didn't find any relevant posts.

To the point, is there a specific reason the Ring of Wizardry can't be used by bards, considering they are arcane casters?
I just find the restriction a bit pointless.

EnialusMeliamne

I agree with you incidentally, but I believe that it remains in effect because of the way the original game was coded. If that ever were to be fixed, I'd be another happy guy for it.

atcDave

An item made for mages is not usable by Bards, that includes many items. Bards are not mages, they may share certain knowledge, but their training IS different. This is true in PNP too, it is faithful to 2E rules, not a coding error.

secretmantra

Perhaps it was a class balancing decision, since Bards were never intended to have as much spellcasting utility as Mages and Sorcerors? You know, especially given the fact that they can wear armor and have more hitpoints than other arcane casters, etc.? Just a guess though.

Personally I think it would be cool if it was allowed, as it would make Bards potentially much more useful.

Sed

But sorcerors can use it, but they are not wizards, and comparing bards and sorcerors I would say that bards are much closer to wizards.

Just my 2 cents, but it's bugging me ^^

the_spyder

Close doesn't mean equal too.

Nifft

atcDave said:

An item made for mages is not usable by Bards, that includes many items.

Like Wands?
Or maybe you mean Scrolls?

secretmantra said:

Personally I think it would be cool if it was allowed, as it would make Bards potentially much more useful.

Agree.

This would make it much more viable to have a Bard as your primary caster. They're still not going to be as good a mage as Edwin or **SPOILER**, but they'll have reasonable endurance for levels 3-5 (same XP as mage levels 2-4).

atcDave

Sed said:

But sorcerors can use it, but they are not wizards, and comparing bards and sorcerors I would say that bards are much closer to wizards.

Just my 2 cents, but it's bugging me ^^

But sorcerers are a retrofit. They're not even a part of 2E rules. They are a 3E class that was added in to BG2 because 3E was just coming out and they wanted to make the game look more like the "new" rules. It's interesting to me that they seem to work as well as they do. But a lot of the details on sorcerers were made up on the fly when they were added in as a new class.
You really can't ever use them as a comparison for the core classes though. They don't always line up well.

Selaboc

Sed said:

But sorcerors can use it, but they are not wizards, and comparing bards and sorcerors I would say that bards are much closer to wizards.

Just my 2 cents, but it's bugging me ^^

In 2e, Bards are part of the Rogue group of classes, they are not part of the Wizard group despite their arcane abilities. Sorcerers come from 3e, so they don't have a native 2e grouping. At a guess, since they best fit the wizard group (they don't have thieving, priestly, or warrior type abilities), they were coded as a subclass of wizard in the BG games. hence why bards (belonging to the rogues group) cannot use a ring of wizardy, but Sorcerer's (belonging to the wizard's group) can.

Sed

Even though they are coded in that way, it really doesn't seem like the logic choice from a spellcasting perspective. It would be more logical if it worked for bards, but not for sorcerors, as sorcerors doesn't learn and remember spells the same way as wizards/bards.

Selaboc

Sed said:

Even though they are coded in that way, it really doesn't seem like the logic choice from a spellcasting perspective. It would be more logical if it worked for bards, but not for sorcerors, as sorcerors doesn't learn and remember spells the same way as wizards/bards.

Bards are not part of the wizard class in 2e. Those are the PnP rules that were the starting point for the game. No matter how "logical" you think it would be to group them with wizards, they are not in the wizard group per the ruleset.

Sorcerer's are not 2e characters but, since they were added to the game, had to be retrofitted to the 2e ruleset. as such, and as I pointed out, their best fit is among the wizards, which means picking up wizard items except where specifically coded to be dis-allowed. Disallowing Sorcerer's does nothing for Bards.

Bottom line: you asked: is there a specific reason the Ring of Wizardry can't be used by bards, considering they are arcane casters? and the answer is because they are not part of the wizard group per the 2e rules.

the_spyder

Sed said:

Even though they are coded in that way, it really doesn't seem like the logic choice from a spellcasting perspective. It would be more logical if it worked for bards, but not for sorcerors, as sorcerors doesn't learn and remember spells the same way as wizards/bards.

Actually it would make more sense if it didn't work for either sorcerer or bard class.

SirK8

This seems to be working as intended. The great news is you can mod your game to use the ring as a bard if you want right?

Anduin

Why can't bards use the ring of wizardry?

Simple answer.

They are sh*te.

Go multiclass or dual and reap the benefits.

Or play IWD. They have proper man bards that put the ard in Bard.

Kilivitz

I absolutely disagree with the above post. Due to level progression, for the better part of BG1 Bards can be just as efficient spellcasters as Mages, if not more.

And that's yet another reason as to why it's better that they can't use the ring of wizardry.

I realize the post was lighthearted, but seriously, I don't get the hate on Bards.

Kilivitz

Now I want the Ring of Bardry mod.

Gives a Bard the effects of the Lingering Song HLA, can cast Friends once per day, and looks awesome when worn with Golden Pantaloons.

the_spyder

Wouldn't a ring of Bardry be a warm, wet circle?

Anduin

@kilivitz The reason I dislike bards is due to their jack of all trades, master of none make up. People say they hate multiclass because of slow progression. Well, why do you think Bards have fast progression?

@the_spyder said:

Wouldn't a ring of Bardry be a warm, wet circle?

This is so wrong on so many levels...

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Splod

I would have thought the secret laid in the item name?

The_Shairs_Handbook

atcDave said:

Sed said:

But sorcerors can use it, but they are not wizards, and comparing bards and sorcerors I would say that bards are much closer to wizards.

Just my 2 cents, but it's bugging me ^^

But sorcerers are a retrofit. They're not even a part of 2E rules. They are a 3E class that was added in to BG2 because 3E was just coming out and they wanted to make the game look more like the "new" rules. It's interesting to me that they seem to work as well as they do. But a lot of the details on sorcerers were made up on the fly when they were added in as a new class.
You really can't ever use them as a comparison for the core classes though. They don't always line up well.

Only one thing... there is sorcerer in 2nd edition..... the thing is they are diffrient than 3rd edition version but closer to 4th edition version Sorcerer. sadly as you said they use 3rd edtion version of monk, sorcerer and barbarian... and i hate it.... keep it 2nd edition what I say.

2nd edition Sorcerer:
In tunewith the basic fabric of the real world, they understand
the power of all the elements: Earth in the form of
desert sand, Water in the waves of the sea, Air in the
free winds, and Fire in the heat of rage and flames of
passion. Unlike the elemental mages,
sorcerers are allowed to specialize in two elemental
provinces at once—such as earth and wind, water and
earth, or even water and fire. (The concept of opposing
elements does not exist in Sorcerer mind.)


and for those who are interested
Elemental Mage:
Elemental mages specialize in one of the four
elemental provinces: earth, water, fire, or air. They
gain great power and control within that province, but
lose their ability to cast spells from any of the
remaining three.

*source 2nd edition DnD*

atcDave

Shairs that's from a supplemental Handbook, not a core rule. And as you mention, the Sorcerer of BG is very different.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Delvarian

Total agreement with the above poster, let my bard use the one ring!

Irbis

In my upcomming mod there are couple of Modules regarding Evermemory ring. Now it can be used by bards or/and will stack if you have more of them. Just pay attention to my posting. I should be able to finish it soon.
kudos

smeagolheart

Ring of Bardery. Must exist.

Ring of Druidity, the Ring of Clericness and the Ring of Fighterdom as well should get some love.

the_spyder

subtledoctor said:

If I'm not mistaken, the ring is called "Evermemory." According to 2e rules, bards study spellbooks and memorize spells the same way mages do. This isn't Bard's Tale or something like that where bards get magic directly by way of music. Bards spring from the 1e concept, which is very much like a multiclass F/T/M... and F/T/M's *can* use the ring of wizardry. Therefore, a magic item which has the sole function of improving someone's ability to memorize arcane spells should be usable by bards, unless there's something specific in its lore that marks it as wizard only.

Sorcerors don't memorize spells, therefore they should get no benefit from the ring.

Thankfully I have Near Infinity, and I can set things right when the devs get something wrong.

I don't know about the actual Rules book, but the game mechanics (in PnP and in the game) for Bard spells works much more like the Sorcerer rather than the Wizard. There is no switching out of spells on a daily basis for a bard like Wizards can do. Hence, I would guess that the mechanics behind it would actually make Bard and Sorcerer more similar than Bard and Wizard. Again, from a mechanics perspective alone.

In that, I would suggest that Bards don't so much memorize spells as they do intuit them in the same manner that Sorcerers do. I'd vote that the ring not effect Bards and that it not effect Sorcerers either, QED. My stance on the topic is that it is called a ring of WIZARDRY and should therefore be only used by a Wizard. merely my opinion.

smeagolheart

the_spyder said:

In that, I would suggest that Bards don't so much memorize spells as they do intuit them in the same manner that Sorcerers do. I'd vote that the ring not effect Bards and that it not effect Sorcerers either, QED. My stance on the topic is that it is called a ring of WIZARDRY and should therefore be only used by a Wizard. merely my opinion.

.. And that's why we need a Ring of Bardery, Ring of Druidity, Ring of Clericness and Ring of Fighterdom. Fair and balanced.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

smeagolheart

subtledoctor said:

... in this game, bards are just fighter-mages who can sing.

and can pick pockets. And look fabulous in golden pantaloons.

the_spyder

@smeagolheart - I think that the ring of wizardry exists because wizards only have spells, and at low levels only a few. Means that they don't do much in a game like BG. Clerics can fight and Fighters are always useful at low levels. So having "equal" items would only remove the initial reason for adding the ring of wizardry. IMHO.