Summoning UPP argument continuation

Remove all ads!

Didn't want to hijack the other thread further.

It depends on the team. 2 Bards lending their songs and buffs to a team of 3 fighter-types (on top of the cleric's buffs - the 4th member, the diviner/rogue, stays back) with 5 summons? No other class could replace the Bard in such a setup. The bard is simply the best class for UPP's going the summoning path, the alternative to ultra-high AC. Bards are supposed to be able to do something else besides singing. That's the whole point behind Lingering Song.

"Cheating" is a very harsh word to use for two bards alternating only two active sets of Tymora's Melody, Ballad of the Three Heroes and War Chant of Sith. I do not call others' buff-stacking-to-70-AC "cheating" or "bug abuse". We all don't consider IWD2's lack of restrictions on +stat/buff stacking "cheating", yet taking away the stacking of songs from different sources is the same as implying that the kind of +stat stacking implemented in IWD2 should be reworked as well. Know that a lot of those +stat bonuses shouldn't stack... D&D rules are very strict about stacking. Since the 70+ AC setup exists, then there's no reason why the stacking of Bard Songs from other sources shouldn't. That is fair. If we have to be "pure" about things then we take both off the game. What's cheating is a single Bard abusing the way lingering song works by stacking the same song, or stacking more than one song per round. Songs are abilities and like the deep gnome's +generic AC should stack with others from other sources, unlike spells.
If the same deep gnome finds some way to apply his own bonus to AC more than once then that would be cheating. Same for songs.

Try "autopause: every round", the feature is there IIRC. Or you can simplify things and just linger them all in one round. This is technically cheating, but beats pausing the game every few rounds for practically the same effect as when you're not "cheating".

You do not want a Bard that focuses purely on strength. One of the most important things points Jukka and the old UPP made (a lot of the stuff in this party is actually based on a variation of the JUPP, I simply substituted AC for summons) is that going pure strength is not the way to excel as melee character in IWD2. More important is that you have, as in the case of the JUPP, very high AC... and godly DC. Again, my summoning party simply replaces that "AC" part with summoned creatures and the "godly" with above average+spammage (summoned creatures do most of the melee action, freeing up more room for castings and tactics).

In fact the Bards in this team have stats somewhere around the lines of 14-16 Str, 14 Con and 16-18 Cha, while the other stats are 10-ish (I wanted the party to look "nice" and even opted for 14 Int just to get all the dialogue, IIRC). All additional stats dump into Cha. From the start you have 2 chars that can cast Sleep (+SF:Enchantment, if you want). Add deep gnome and a non-ECL wizard. Use diplomacy and stealing for more rewards (an actual fireball potion you wouldn't get otherwise, among others). What's not to like about the start setup?

You have come to the same conclusion as I have with Bards. They are very effective if you have lots of fighter-type allies. I simply decided that you really don't need to take in additional party members when some other method to call in reinforcements exists. (ie summoning)

Bards have a lot to offer in a melee situation. They basically have the same BAB as clerics, and both classes will be using the same items for some time. As long as the target is sleeping, stunned, confused or preoccupied with something else then the Bard will be doing practically the same amount of damage as the cleric for a large chunk out of the first half of the normal game. Factor in lingering songs, Armor, Mirror Image, Blur, some enchantment spells and some good spells like Chromatic Orb, and finally some amount of hiding-behind-the-cleric and Bard will carry his weight just fine until you get ranged axes. Although he will no longer be able to match the prowess of a cleric once the the cleric gains his more powerful self-buffs, things are different once you consider 5 summoned creatures and all the arcane goodies bards have to offer along with their songs at higher levels. The cleric simply won't have as much to offer anymore since AC and damage are already covered and you only need one cleric to take care of all the party buffs. There's only the issue of miscellaneous duties (which was why I chose Oghma). The Diviner/Rogue rounds off the party, offering thieving duties other than stealing and taking on any other duty that doesn't involve casting most of the game's buffs.

Finally one other thing about Bards is that they can sustain the use of their buffs and spells. Someone who can spam spells like Mass Haste and Wail of the Banshee works very well with a wall of buff-saturated summoned creatures, and this party has two of them.

 

The DO do something else besides singing - spellcasting. The summoning path is a nice idea, but summons don't always cut it against the tougher bosses. And the best summons, Aminate Dead, possibly don't benefit from bard songs because they're undead.

Cheat is a harsh word, so let's keep it at 'cheese' then. I'm not a fan of the 70+AC game exploit either, but my motivation is also not about the D&D rules: Achieving 70+AC involves several short-lasting spells, which can only be cast a few times a day. This means you must rest before proceeding, or your main tactic becomes unusable. For me, a well played game is one where you try to last as long as you can without resting, and try to use most of your spellbook. If I need to rest to get back a crucial spell, while my party hasn't used half their spell book yet, I'd consider it a failure, due to party imbalance.

It's a good idea to facilitate the multisong cheese, but still doesn't make it entirely user friendly. You still need to do a lot of clicking every 12 seconds to reactivate everything. Here our opinions differ, I don't see the autopause function as cheating. It's a tool to promote efficiency. A party member knows when it's finished casting a spell. Before I discovered autopause, I rarely cast spells atall: I once played through BG2, having cast less than 5 spells in the entire game. I didn't even notice when Jan Jansen couldn't cast level 7 spells due to his low INT.

Well, my party isn't focused on getting the best AC and DC at any expense, so it can't be considered 'ultimate'. But the versatility added to gameplay allows for many tactical options to be used, which is 'ultimate' in its own right.
My party can summon and buff with the best, and there's more spells to go around because there's just one bard (bards get fewer spells). A second bard gets you a doubling of song effects, and allows you to double-cheese the song stacking too. But it's not realistic that a bard can (lingeringly) sing 3 songs at the same time, while also fighting. The inconvenience of the procedure testifies to that.

My 6STR drow bard can max out DEX, CON and CHA, and still achieve 14INT for the dialogue and skillpoints. I used the bard for singing from the start, and never found it practical to get it involved in combat. The constant reactivating of the Lingering Song is inconvenient and distracting, because it requires constant vigilance, when you should be concentrating on spells and positioning...
Sleep is a great spell at the start of the game, but it's one of those spells that completely loses usefulness after the beginning. That's why I chose to let my wizard cast it, and didn't pick it for my bard or sorcerer.

What we disagree on, is how well summons can be used to replace party combat. A gang of 6 summons can be called to your aid, but often their time with the party is limited, and they won't travel with you to the next map. I see them as either footsoldiers to clear out a large map, or vital support in difficult battles, as decoys and meat shields. But the damage they do in boss battles is often unreliable, so they serve as auxilia for my superbuffed tanks, who do the real damage! i know stuff like Shades (competes with Mass Haste for spell slots) can be quite significant allies, but they're short-lasting.

You're paying very little attention to the cleric's (self-)buff spells: In my gameplay anyway, demand and usefulness of the cleric buffs was great enough to warrant having 2 of them on the frontline. My criticism of bards is basically what you described yourself: Although they technically have the same BAB as clerics, they have fewer hitpoints, and their buff spells are outmatched by both the clerics and the mages. Even my druid can summon more often than my bard.
A single bard is useful for talking skills, and having a decoy around with a free hand and a selection of spells that can be very helpful for a battle; I was surprised how often my bard used Dismissal. If my mages or clerics were to cast that, they couldn't cast important spells for another round, and 6 seconds is all a boss needs to hack a frontliner to (near) death. That's what I mean with 'a free hand'.

Bards are decent suppliers of buffs, but should coordinate with mages, so that mages cast the spells bards lack. Bards get level 6 spells at class level 16, meaning bardic Mass Haste should become available near the end of the game. Mages get it at level 11/12, big difference. They get level 8 spells (Wail o/t Banshee) at class level 26: My party went through normal mode, and I'm playing Icewind Gate mod now. I'm through most of the BG2 game, and my bard just recently got level 7 spells. Wo/tB is nothing more than a high level perk, and isn't worth taking into consideration.

 

Ah well. I basically just enjoy micromanaging more than you I guess.

Never underestimate the power of a team of 5 summoned creatures (ala Shades, Animated Dead or any other summoning spell that scales with levels) saturated with buffs and bard song (you can buff the undead... some). Double Tymora's Melody alone, if the JUPP's hunch is correct, already shifts everyone's rolls closer to a 20. In practice you will see the screen shake a lot more often from all the criticals everyone (including the monsters) are doing. JUPP also hints that luck is suspected of increasing normal damage output and spell DC as well.

The monsters are reliable in any fight, you can be sure of that. They also last long enough if your caster level is high enough - which is why I advocate pure Bard. The problem with instant encounters can be taken cared of with the right tactics, like selective invisibility and passing aggro. This group can also bring their summons to bear, buffed and ready to go, in a short time I doubt any other combination could match.
It does have its downsides. If Isair/Madae manage to charm some of your monsters against you or if some monsters get held/paralyzed and get left out of the battle then things can get nasty, but you can counter these with your own spells and some micromanagement.

Bards are basically like minor sorcerers so they can spam the spells necessary to make the team work (they can sustain the buffs, the summons, the debuffs, etc). They get their spells late, yes, but why do you think the party chose to take a Wizard? They complement each other very well, from low, mid to end game. The same goes for the cleric.

 

Sure, the luck bonus is a powerful effect, that why I came to realize the usefulness of the bard. But double Tymora's doesn't completely double the usefulness of the song: The +3 saving throw helps you often to make a saving throw, but the +6 of double Tymora's won't double the amount of fails changed to saves.
As for damage output and spell DC: Tymora's increases everything that the affected character makes a dice roll for. Attack roll, damage rolls for combat and spells, you name it. it will only affect your own spell's DC, since you make an attack roll for it. It won't help you save against enemy spells though, since the game just assigns a standard 'saving throw' of 10 + WIS bonus (and whatever other effects influence it) to a defender. You don't roll, so you can't get lucky.
I think that's why you get +3 saving throw bonus with the song as well: When you think of being lucky, making a save is the first thing that comes to mind.

 

Some clarifications:

I haven't been able to reproduce ANY claims made for luck being a helper for spells, neither your own nor the ones cast by the enemy. As far as I can tell, it only helps your physical combatants to hit/crit more often and shift their damage towards the maximum dice rolls. I'd have to double check the effect on saving throws, but IIRC luck doesn't help there either since I've still seen critically failed rolls.

Also, on the account of keeping up the buffs to maintain 70+ AC. The new version of JUPP details several ways to alleviate this problem by noting that you don't really need 72 AC against much of anything except for the select few fights in Severed Hand, HOF mode. Something like 65-68 AC is good enough for a vast majority of the time, all the way up to and including large parts of Chapter Five.

At the very worst, you'll have several casters to cover up the buffs that last for 5 rounds / level, and in my experience one casting is usually enough to clear a map.