@Drusyc They certainly benefit from micro-management, to the same extent as any hybrid attacker/caster. Though I would argue that even with spell-weaving, they come up short on damage, simply because spell damage isn't particularly high; certainly not high enough to offset loss of physical damage with a decent weapon.
This matters less in BG1, as enemy HP are lower and thus spells have more of an impact. Also, there are far less magic resistant enemies in BG1 than BG2, where vampires, golems, beholder, mind flayer, and all those sorts of creatures lurk around every corner.
In fact, Bards (and Blades in particular) are probably stronger in BG1 than BG2 in general. Much of that is because their spells are actually competitive with mages', because you rely on lower level spells to do your work. In BG2/ToB, you get a lot of bang out of your higher level spells, and mages skyrocket in power. Since Bards are limited to lvl6 spells, that is a disadvantage.
I think in BG1 a Bard can fill the role of a F/M(/T) quite effectively; in BG2, they are probably not good enough compared to a proper F/M or F->M. But again, all this talk is often largely theoretical, with little real-life application for 99% of the players out there. Most people are far better off worrying about RP and their own personal idea of a cool character than about a 10% power advantage. Still, for completeness as well as those remaining 1%, I think it's good to talk about these things. Just be sure to know what YOU want out of your game, and be careful not to let power spoil it too much if it's not your thing
@Lord_Tansheron absolutely; which is why a majority of my bards fall to the way-side as support casters and buff characters instead of moving to the frontlines... unfortunately, it's also why I can't bear to play non-blade bards (I like having my character in the action, half-orc Fighter/Thieves are my thing).
@Lord_Tansheron - in BG2, a Bard has one huge advantage: they start off with six wands (each nearly empty) and a potion of master thievery. This means they can sell + steal the wands to get 50 or 100 charges on each, which is enough to get you through a big chunk of the early game.
Even at high level, a Bard's added spellcasting can be helpful. The Bard casts stuff the specialist can't, or throws things like Remove Magic / Malison / Slow / Breach (which are good at every level) while the Mage casts stuff like Horrid Wilting.
If you compare the experience charts to each classes's spellcasting ability, bards are practically mages with more caster levels, more hp, better THAC0, and Pick Pocket. This drops off towards ToB, mind, but with rogue HLAs it's hard to complain. Plus Tenser's Transformation is actually worth a damn on a bard, if only because doubling the hp of someone who could already have near-fighter-level hp is pretty nice. The blade is even better, because what little the bard loses in spellcasting he gets back in fighting ability. So yeah, probably overpowered. About as good as a fighter/mage, maybe even moreso.
Skalds are more fair, but still good. They make great buffers, and better magetanks than your actual mages. They're also not awful at hurting things in melee at lower levels, although don't expect them to rack up the kills.
Not to mention, bards also get thief epic traps, allowing them to time stop, massive knockback fireballs, and ludicrous spike traps. All of which are roughly equal to 8th and 9th level casting or actually better in some cases, just a little bit harder to use.
Comments
This matters less in BG1, as enemy HP are lower and thus spells have more of an impact. Also, there are far less magic resistant enemies in BG1 than BG2, where vampires, golems, beholder, mind flayer, and all those sorts of creatures lurk around every corner.
In fact, Bards (and Blades in particular) are probably stronger in BG1 than BG2 in general. Much of that is because their spells are actually competitive with mages', because you rely on lower level spells to do your work. In BG2/ToB, you get a lot of bang out of your higher level spells, and mages skyrocket in power. Since Bards are limited to lvl6 spells, that is a disadvantage.
I think in BG1 a Bard can fill the role of a F/M(/T) quite effectively; in BG2, they are probably not good enough compared to a proper F/M or F->M. But again, all this talk is often largely theoretical, with little real-life application for 99% of the players out there. Most people are far better off worrying about RP and their own personal idea of a cool character than about a 10% power advantage. Still, for completeness as well as those remaining 1%, I think it's good to talk about these things. Just be sure to know what YOU want out of your game, and be careful not to let power spoil it too much if it's not your thing
Even at high level, a Bard's added spellcasting can be helpful. The Bard casts stuff the specialist can't, or throws things like Remove Magic / Malison / Slow / Breach (which are good at every level) while the Mage casts stuff like Horrid Wilting.
Skalds are more fair, but still good. They make great buffers, and better magetanks than your actual mages. They're also not awful at hurting things in melee at lower levels, although don't expect them to rack up the kills.