HEY BEAMDOG, ANY PLANS FOR THE BARD CLASS?
GueulEclator
Member Posts: 175
I would like to know if you guys at beamdog have any plan for the bard class?
They were a little bit left out in baldurs gate 1 and 2, and I think most agree that they were underpowered.
They just need a few fix to be better (they song for example).
Are you guys making some fixes for the Bard?
They were a little bit left out in baldurs gate 1 and 2, and I think most agree that they were underpowered.
They just need a few fix to be better (they song for example).
Are you guys making some fixes for the Bard?
0
Comments
Other fix aside from the song are needed.
The Bard is a walking, talking buff with his song. If you're not using it, you're missing out, especially in the case of Skalds and Jesters.
Bards naturally improve at Pick Pocket so your Thief doesn't have to.
Bards gain levels faster than any other spellcaster, which means their Magic Missile, Chromatic Orb, Flame Arrow, Skull Trap, Dispel Magic and other level-based spell effects improve faster than other characters.
An extra set of hands for holding rods/wands/scrolls that only spellcasters can use is always useful.
Even with his song, your better off with another class, the boost from his song offers less advantage than an extra warrior or better : a mage/warrior. So you wouldn't use the song much often.
Overall kensai/mage just made any bard kit completely useless.
Honestly, bard was probably the least played class, and most post on bard, on many forums, are complaining about how weak he is compared to other classes. It can't be a coincidence.
Still, I have to disagree that an extra warrior is more useful. That means one more pair of hands that needs a decent weapon. I prefer to have a Bard provide two frontliners with buffs than to have three frontliners.
And no, the skald songs might look good, but it's better just to have an extra warrior or mage on the field, you can try to do the math some have done it.
And blade is definitively inferior to any warrior/mage, it's a fact.
The Spells should then be fixed only for BG 2.
As for the song, i will hold my position. Unless you are playing a skald (and even there...), you are never going to play the plain bard song (you should look at it's effect, it's pathetic).
You are never going to play the blade song either, and almost never the jester song either (almost no enemies, unless in the very beginning, will fail the saving throw).
far BG 1 :
-Plain bard song should be enhanced (it's effect right now are pathetic)
-Jester song should be enhanced (almost never works on strong enemies)
-Blade song should be slightly improved.
-Skald song should also be slightly balanced (make it stronger only at higher level, keep it as it is for the low level).
Trumpets!
bring the midgets in!
One of the most interesting games I ever played was using two PCs in MP mode running vanilla BG1, conceived as a husband and wife team: a plain druid and a plain bard. Both being considered the weakest classes for BG1, which I had never opted to try. The object was to see how to get the best uses out of both classes. I did create a full party of six using NPCs, so they had help. I really enjoyed that game a lot because it was so different. But anyway, my point is that sometimes there's fun to be had in variety and seeking a greater challenge.
But Overall, as far as BG 1 goes ( BG2 is a completely different case) What should be improved is the PLain Bard song, who is right now weaker than any level 1 buff spell.
So yeah, improve the Bard song so that it's at least worth it to play it. Also improve the jester song too, and allow the blade song to be slightly more useful.
In BG1, a Blade doesn't need any songs really. While the other ones, well, think of it this way - you start weak no matter what class you are. And the songs are constant buffs if you allow your bards to sing on, while other buffs don't last nearly as long.
A lot of Kits actually have some weak points to balance the strong points out a bit. That makes these classes only more interesting.
Even the plain Bard is a well balanced class.
To sum up what some people already have said:
Pro:
- Levels up very fast -> His level based spells (e.g. Fireball ^^) are most of the time stronger than those of a mage with the same Exp (not to speak of Multi/Dual mages).
- Can use Bows
- Can use Wands
- Has very high Lore -> that saves you most of the time slots for the Identify spell
- Has Thieving ability, which your Thief needn't learn then
- The plain bardsong is just a bonus. The Bard would be good even without it.
- In BG2 ToB he has UAI and the overpowered HLA traps + HLA bardsong
The only thing that would make him stand apart from a cheap mage would be if his song was more powerful or if he was able to wear some armor when he cast a spell (exept elven armor, you only get it very late in the game).
Or any other kind of special ability would ake him more interesting.
I'm better off with a mage that has bigger casting spell possibilities.
I'm not talking about throne of baal right now, only BG1
And when he sings, the bard can't do anything else other than moving. Considering the weak bonus, it's better to use the mage as a spellcaster/fighter the whole time.
It makes sense that you can't sing while casting spells, but I think it should be possible to sing while fighting. Maybe with an added ability check, similar to staying hidden in shadows.
Chromatic orb is super overpowered with High-level low-XP characters like Bards and Avenger druids. In Tutu I was able to insta-kill Sarevok that way!
thanks for the info.
Yet, does that still makes him a better spell caster than a mage. Because let's face it, unless you have a blade, you are just going to use your mage as a spellcaster. So the question is : is the bard really worth it compared to a sorcerer or mage?
I believe no, if you want a magic wielder, simply pick a sorcerer or a mage. That would be different however, if the bard song was more powerful, and could be used when the bard is in melee.
That would give the bard another dimension that the mage doesn't have.
PS : I never really played to blade, how does he buffs himself in combat if he can't cast with his armor on? Since you use him mostly for melee, do you actually make him use spells?
You either buff before fights and then put your armor on, or you just go in naked.
You basically say: Why use a Bard, because a Kensai/Mage is better?
One could buff the Bard class up and then say: Why use a Mage Multi, because the new Bard is better?
Imho, the Bard is good as it is. Even without his song he would be good. Especially in BG1 his spells are simply more powerful than the mage's ones.
Concerning your Blade question, you actually play him as you would a Fighter/Mage. Melee only for weak mobs. For tough encounters you fight without physical armor, but with Armour spell, Mirror Image and the like. Get him a Robe of the Archmagi and he even doesn't need any physical armor.
Kensai can go naked because they have much more melee skilld and abilities than a bard (except the blade)
You even quoted it, lol.
edit:
I soloed a plain Bard in BG1 and it was pretty easy compared to other classes.
He is quite powerful, if you believe it or not. Even my Sorceror run in Tutu was more tedious than my Bard run in classic BG1.