All the Classes VS the Bard

Remove all ads!

I am pretty sure that in a duel, it would come down to the individual skill of the player. No matter how good a character is, if the person using it is horrible, then he or she will lose. The only way you can compare the two classes is in a solo run. I am pretty sure that a sorcerer would win this, just because of the pure spell power he can throw out.

 

Offensive magic can be made useless, you are correct. But the sorc will have far more defense buffs than the blad, remember he can cast the abs 3-4 times each, and improved invis 7-8 times. So then when the bards protections shrivel and dissapear the sorc will still be invisible. Then its not a stale mate anymore. Unless the bard has scrolls, which i previously discussed would force an infinte stalemate, unless we use the obvious time stop bug to keep one of the chars in time stop and wait till buffs run out. Again scrolls should not be counted in this, they make it impossible to determine anything.

 

I am a great lover of bards and always play BG1 and BG2 with a bard of some sort.

I think that no class is better than the other, it's all about enjoyment.

In a dual, the biggest question is all about who strikes first. If the sorc strikes first he is likely to win, likewise if the bard strikes first he has a big chance of winning. You can say the same of other classes as well. A wizardslayer could him the bard/sorc a couple of times and then they would start miscasting spells then the ws could just come up and chop them up - but if either the bard/sorc struck first the ws will be dead.

So my point, really, is just about who gets in first and using the classes properly. The D&D system is all about balance. All classes are fairly well matched at a specific xp level.

What makes or breaks a particular class is how you use them and the party make-up you take with you to strengthen your weaknesses and provide the support you need for your style of play.

Still, the bard will kick ass!!!

 

Bards are pretty lousy, really. And you are forgetting several things.

1. ALL spells are capped at lv 20, with about 2 non-applicable exceptions, so stop trying to act like a bard is a great spellcaster.

2. It takes a bard forever to cast lv 9 spells, since you can't reduce spellcasting speed, and you even have a delay before you can even use the item. Not to mention that all scrolls are cast at level 9.

 

Oh, this is just great.
Scythe has gone to exteme lengths to explain the potential of the Bards and then someone says they are 'lousy'.
When used by a good player it is clear that they are not. Look at the posts above.

And not all spells are capped at level 20. Tenser is an example for this.

 

A fighter Thac0 does improved beyond 20, so how is it not capped at 20?

 

I guess you are right about the thaco, fade, but Tenser also doubles the hitpoints of the caster. And hitpoints depend, among other factors, on the level.

 

Not bad, scythe. I'd never have been convinced beforehand that a bard would have any real chance against... well, anybody. Of course, I rarely play bards, and I rarely play sorcerors (I'm a melee man; Trog like bashing! raaaaaaaarh! so to hear you talk about it, a bard is an extremely powerful character and a sorceror would have a really difficult time winning this battle.

Except you're being a little too liberal with the assumptions here. Take Scenario A, where the sorceror attacks the bard, in which the sorceror would have no chance of success. To hear you talk about it, the bard is sitting in his theatre/inn/haunted caste, cackling on a golden throne, surrounded by a field of time traps, simply waiting for a foolish sorceror to TRY to attack him. If a sorceror were to attack the bard, in his centre of power, then this foolish sorceror would have no hope of victory.

You couldn't be more wrong. You're completely forgetting both the element of surprise, and the concept of ingenuity. Time traps, eh? Well any sorceror worth his salt would simply cast wave after wave of low level summons to soak those bad boys up. Stay a safe distance away, animate dead, and send them lurching forth. Eventually they'd blaze a trapless trail, or at least force you out of your little minefield to search out this attacker. So your trap argument is weak at best. Keep in mind, however, that the opposite is also true; if a bard were to attack a sorceror in the sorceror's seat of power, the bard's chances of success are equally high. In either case, one party is PREPARED to defeat the other specifically, and that level of preparation will overcome any differences in power level.

Next, as I understand, in an unmodded game, there aren't an INFINITE number of scrolls that each character could have. There is a cap, however high. Since each character can carry the same number of scrolls, then any advantage gained by said scrolls is null and void either way. This leaves the bard at a significant disadvantage regarding spellchucking. While the item cap applies to potions as well, I will concede that a bard has a natrual adavantage due to his superior melee capabilities, but a sorceror's summons will balance that out somewhat. Furthermore, let's look at this from a roleplaying perspective. You are a capped bard, the ultimate renaissance man. You are a master of versatility; you can fight, and what you can't do by fighting you can likely do by magic, or by your rogue skills. You're an expert at pretty much anything. I am a capped sorceror. I'm a pretty wussy fighter, and the only way I know of to open a lock is with a chisel and hammer. I am also not an expert at magic. I am a god at magic. You can rely on other skills if your magic fails you; I don't rely on other skills because I am such an expert at using my magic that it doesn't fail me, ever. If you are saying that a bard is half the spellcaster that a sorceror is, then you're talking from the perspective of somebody who's played through the game with a sorceror as well, and knows all the really powerful magic combinations. A bard would know much, but not half as much as a sorceror (who would probably not know half as much as a mage, but that's neither here nor there).

This will likely be a battle of who gets timestop off first, really, which the sorceror will. If you're playing a blade, there's no way you can really say that your blade, which stresses melee over magic, will have the robe of vecna and other magic enchancing items, so the sorceror will cast it first. Your answer to that is a contingency with improved invis. and pro: divination. Oh, come on. Let's look at this logically (and from the perspective of a character that likely has 18-19 intelligence). You are standing 10 feet away from me. I cast time stop. You suddenly disappear. Oh my god, where did you go? Wow, you sure stopped me! Guess I'll just wait around until my timestop wears off, maybe summon some bears, because there's nothing I can do; after all, you just vanished! Go back to what I said about a sorceror's expertise at magic; he will likely know exactly what you have done, and it's nothing that improved alarcity followed by some horrid wiltings or dragon's breath won't fix. Even if it does work, and there's nothing the sorceror can do, then your timestops are also useless; if the sorceror can't figure out a way around it, then a bard sure as hell can't. Your Scenario B is also fallacious, as I've already said. It will NEVER come down to just melee, as the bard will run out of spells/buffs/contingencies LONG before the sorceror will, and melee vs. high level spellcasting is an uphill battle for the bard at best.

One way to elude the pro: magical weapons spell for the bard would be to have a regular weapon equipped in the quickweapon slot, but that would only work on evil sorcerors as I recall, as good ones recieve immunity to all nonmagical weapons at the end of SOA.

One way to actually prove the argument would be for somebody to actually post their sorceor, complete with items and spell selection, and for you to post your blade. Assuming you're both honest and haven't equipped/selected specifically to win a duel against the other, then one could actually simulate a battle between the two with more then pure speculation as a basis for argument.

 

I think I've said what I've intended to say, and the fact that most people are now more the wiser and belief the Bard has an even chance with the Sorcerer, I couldn't be more content.
More than anything, the purpose of ths thread was to make people see Bards in a better perspective.

I never mentioned I would rely on an infinte number of scrolls.
It really doesn't matter if the Sorcerer has all the buffs in the world - he's dead if he shows himself for too long, so the Bard will make every attempt to flush him out - but that chances of that are favorable for both sides.

All the better you should bring along Haer next time... your fighter would reach the THAc0 cap without too much problem, I'm sure.

By doing this, you are actually leaving yourself open to the Bard. The moment you try to cast something, the Bard can do one of two things: Cast a Timestop Spell from a Scroll, or Charge the Sorcerer head on. To prevent this, you can cast PoM beforehand - which a Bard can dispell with 95% efficiency (the Bard is second only to Inquisitors with Dispell and Remove Magic), leaving you a 4-5 seconds open (casting a spell cooldwon - fixable only with Alacrity, which will be hazardous in this battle, taking too long to cast). If you try to cast Timestop, the Bard disappears, leaving you one Timestop less.

I merely stated that the Bard has the strongest spells, thus he should deserve *some* recognition for this.
This was to prove that Bards aren't lousy spellcasters.

Unless you're fighting someone whose resistances border around nigh-invincibility.

Which leaves casting timestops useless - which is a big disadvantage to the Sorcerer.


@Shazamdude
Your arguements are all great, but you forget that the Bard has supreme lore.
And this means a lot more with a Bard who also has 18 int and wis - he's wiser, smarter and much resourceful than a Mage will ever be.

 

If the Bard can't be targetted I assume he has Spell Immunityivination and some type of invisibility going...In BG2 at least I can still see the whirling ball of a Spell Immunity and I'd target an area near the whirling ball with something nice and cheesy...

If the Bard is immune to it, I assume he has Spell Immunity:Abjuration...Again I'd target the Bard with something nice and cheesy.

Spell Immunities don't stack or shouldn't stack(Baldurdash Fix Pack). So you can only have one at one time.

 

I suppose I should really love the concept of a bard considering that i play alot of music with the band etc. but personally, I'm mmore of a spell casterdude

But why are we looking at 40th level characters?

 

@ Scythesong:
Thanks man, I never knew bards could lay traps, and neither did I know that he could pick pockets so well. Maybe I should try bard next time. Bards getting Use any item -skill was also something I didn't know. Still I will be missing Disarming traps which he can't do.
If one might-be bard fan > sprained typing finger then you have won.

 

@Scythe

My point about summons was that you could theoretically summon creatures a long ways away, send them in, and waste the timetraps, while still being under the effects of staff of the magi induced invisibility, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the bard to find the sorceror in the time before the trap wore off. From a tactical standpoint, I'm not going to set off those traps if the odds of you taking advantage of it are greater then the odds of a certain weather change in hell. It IS possible for a bard to take advantage of such a tactic, but unlikely.

However, you DO bring up an interesting point that allows me to play devil's advocate; stats. Keep in mind that I'm taking a roleplaying standpoint here as well. A bard will have higher stats then a sorceror (ignoring people's propensity to min/max or SK their stats, which is a leap of faith to be sure). A sorceror is pretty much some guy/girl who happens to have magical blood in their lineage. There is no real training involved, so a hopeless lump could be a more powerful sorceror then a veritable genius. A bard, on the other hand, is a class defined by competence. A bard is good at everything. Let's face it, if you can be in a battle with beholders/mind flayers/dragons, and you spend the entire time SINGING, then you've GOT to be good. Seriously, a sorceror is the only class where you could have atrocious stats, and still be incredibly powerful. Other classes, including the bard, have to earn it. This goes back to my point about ingenuity being the most important trait in any one-on-one battle. On average, a bard would have higher stats, especially in wisdom, which is pretty much defined as being the ingenuity stat. If a character's power levels are more or less similar (and most capped characters in ToB, regardless of class, would be similar in power) then the person that is more canny is going to win, and the person with higher wisdom will be more canny. Raw powerwise, I feel the sorceror is greater then a bard, despite his blatant lack of melee related facesmashery, and all things equal, I think a sorceror would win. Having said that, there are many scenarios in which a bard would take this duel.

I think I will take your advice and try Haer'dalis out, Scythe. Maybe take Tashia along too and see for myself which one I'm more impressed with. Now that you've managed to make me play with a blade, try, oh, I dunno, Beastmaster or something! You could start an entire thread about "why you should play this class that nobody plays".

 

No, you wouldn't see anything since the reason why he can't be targetted is because he is invisible. (And just about invincible to magical damage)


@Shazamdude
Agreed, and I for one am also a fan for the Sorcerer's awesome magic power.

I'd like to finish this off with a note on the thing that makes Bards overpowered from a roleplaying perspective - insane lore values.
This roughly means that the Bard is the most all-knowing character in BG2, and the reason why only players who have gotten through BG2 can truly roleplay a Bard.
With his high lore, a player can use prior knowledge of the game more freely than any other character. After all, what else can you expect from someone who has the knowledge of just about every item in the game (complete with history and known properties) and can identify even the most remote or unique item upon sight?
For example, Kangaax.
Any other character would not have known what Kangaax likes to cast, let alone who Kangaax is. It won't matter if they have all the +4 items and Protection from Magic spells in the world - they're gone after one spell if they don't know what to defend themselves against.
But for the Bard, given the scope of his lore, he would know who Kangaax is, and more. If Kangaax was so powerful, the Bard would have all recorded knowledge (or even the faintest rumor) of him, and would even know that he's a demi-lich.
He would also know that demi-liches like to cast imprisonment, and are immune to magic, vulnerable to +4 or higher enchantment only, etc.
This very knowledge is enough to kill Kangaax - it's just a matter of time and looking for the proper resources.
Lore encompasses a lot of fields, and complements both Intelligence and Wisdom. It's a powerful roleplaying stat that is taken for granted because for any other class it's much too low until some point all too later in the game.
It's one of the Bard's most powerful tools, and with it he could do more than just know - he could assume, plan and even predict.

 

I am really getting sick of all these talks about how great a bard is compared to a sorcerer.

You want to allow pre-battle prepping (by setting all your time traps)? Fine. Here's the sorcerer's:

Project Image + 4 planetar summons.
Chain Contigency with SI: Abjuration, Divination, and Mislead.

Battle starts: Planetars all hit the bard at once, CC goes off on both the sorc and his project image. Image casts simulacrum of itself, then starts pelting bard with horrid wiltings and dragon's breaths while the bard is being held up by several planetars.

The bard can do nothing to remove the protections on the sorc, btw. Bard casts SI:Abjuration on himself, but sorc removes it with RR.

And, oh yeah, if the bard does somehow manage to get past the planetars and kill the image, he's still got the simulacrum and a fully charged mage that can hit him with more dragon's breaths, horrid wiltings, and planetars.

You make your bard immune to everything, sorc can do the same thing. Bard cannot remove the sorcerer's immunities, but the sorc can remove the bard's. If I have to explain this statement, then you obviously don't know the spells in the game as well as you think.

I really don't care if you want to tout about the prowess of the bard, but don't start putting other classes down.

 

The Bard is great ALONG with the Sorcerer, not against it. For all his power a Bard in any party will only be second best, no matter what his does, because all that he does will not only help himself but the party as well.
Doesn't it strike everybody as odd why I never said the Bard class was better than the Sorcerer class overall?

The thread is about how a Bard CAN kill a Sorcerer and how he makes up for the Sorcerer's skill in magery, which is another thing entirely.

All your pre-battle preps will be wasted after Spell Immunityivination + Inivisibility. I'll wait out all your preparations and leave you as were were before, only much more spent.
Three Abi-Dalzims (or even Dragon's Breaths) will not kill the Bard - he can survive them given the right equipment.

Actually, they both can't remove each other's Immunites so the result is a waiting game - and the class who moves first will usually be at the disadvantage.
If the Bard waits too long then the Sorcerer will overpower him - which is why he will rely on tactics to flush the Sorcerer out.
What matters next is a game of luck and chance favorable for both sides.

Which I didn't. Everybody knows the prowess of the Sorcerer, and that can never be changed. That a Bard can defeat the Sorcerer poses no big difference - only that the Bard is more powerful than he seems.
A Bard can kill a Sorcerer. The Bard class doesn't outpower the Sorcerer class, but has ways of making itself just as good and enjoyable by crossing in entirely different elements.

This is what this thread is all about.

I thought it was well understood, but let me explain why I said some things:

IMO Bard is the greatest class solo-wise AND separately. Maybe someday in the future it will be seen why, or maybe not.

EDIT: Harsh words were spoken here, and for that I apologize. But just this afternoon I realized that I was forcing other people to come to realize something they shouldn't realize for a longer time yet, and for that I'm very sorry.

[ December 17, 2003, 11:39: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]

 

Its not quite that simple rastor, but yes the gist of it is that anything the bard can do so can the sorc, and he can do it for longer. Anyway its really a match which sorc should win, but wont sometimes.

@Scythe, ive been getting into playing with blade these last few days, hes ok, but the beggining of SOA is a pain, im lvl 13 right now and really I suck terribly, even with all my buffs. Im using girdle of hill giant, and long swords. Im going to do planar prison but im still in the sewers right now. Any advice to get my thaco up besides the spins? Tensers is not applicable to me yet, DUHM seems the best choice but I dont get many of those. I guess I just have to spin out and rest for all the semi tough fights. Im playing on insane and have tons of mods which improve ai and stuff, so its not so easy to win this. Any advice would be helpful, i hope to be a lot more powerful when i pick up the items outta planar prison, plus belm. Then i might get imoen, i think that part of the game will be easier than this truth be told.

 

@Everyone

You still all seem to be ignoring the monk. Please tell me how on earth you could think that a bard (or anyone) could beat a monk, given what I have allready said about them (back on page one), and what all of you allready know, which I admit, is probably further than I do.

Let's be realistic here, so try to keep role-playing in mind. Any strength that the bard has, the monk either has in greater proportion, or can overcome with little difficulty. This doesn't need much explanation I think as the strengths of the monk class should be relatively obvious, but I will explain myself if necessary.

Edit: In the effort of moving things along quicker I thought I'd give some examples.

I'm not too familiar with ToB, so I'm not focusing on Equipment so much as natural abilities.

Spell resistance max (102%, hehe 78% natural, and using equipment such as Ring of Gaax - and has superb-nigh-cheesy saving-throws anyway)

AC of ~ -15

Fists strike as +4 weapons

Can out-run spells as they are cast due to fast movement (+10 to move), can out-wait protection spells due to patience and stealth ability, can detect traps using detect traps. Also has deflect missiles (in case that becomes pertinent, I can't see a use for it yet, but you never know).

Immune to various negative effects such as slow, charm, or poison.

By the end of SoA has 4.5 (weapons) attacks and Thac0 of -11 (with minor equipment, not sure what this is like in high levels in ToB, could be as high as 7 to 13 unarmed, don't know). I'm not certain on this. It may be 4.5 attacks with fists as well, or that may be 7, but 4.5 is high enough.

Has higher wisdom and dexterity scores than any other char, (roleplaying anyway, I know everyone can have all maxed if they roll them) should have a higher strength and constitutuion than the bard.

Quivering palm- chance for instant death.

Stunning blow - pragmatically just as effective as time-trap when facing a single opponent.

Stealth and patience means they will not be detected until they choose to reveal themselves, giving oppurtunity and advantage to the monk.

Wisdom means they can intuitively assertain plans or 'traps' other than laid traps and determine motives (I would say that they could also tell where an invisible character is by observation of the environment, even though the character may be invisible, but will limit this to the time when the character perfoms an action noticeable by the Player -such as spell-casting or attacking- for compatibility with BG)

Can use wands; such as monster-summoning, cloudkill, etc. etc. and scrolls; such as protection scrolls.

Well, that is enough for now. Tell me what you all think, I am perfectly open to debate.

I want to let you know I haven't played the monk through BGII itself, only elsewhere, but I think the stats speak for themself.

[ December 17, 2003, 09:41: Message edited by: Manus ]

 

@Scythesong Immortal,

All right, talking about solo-wise, a multi-class fighter/mage can handle battles after battles before he/she needs to rest, but for a bard, I believe he/she will use up all his/her spells in just a few battles. So, if anyone wants to play solo, I hardly think he/she will play with a bard which needs to rest most of the time, thus wasting time. And unless Cheesy or powergaming tactics are used, I don't think bard will have a easy time in BG2.
Btw, I meant no offense, but I used to respect bard as a jack of all, but master of none. After seeing what you have typed, I think bard is a jack of all class, and a master of boasting

 

I have failed.
I brought all of this up too early -
Which is just as good since it means that the game is still going strong, but It's also just as well that I've started something.

It's about time this matter was put to rest. Maybe someday other gamers will be able to see Bards the way I see them, but at the moment that is just not possible. I'll leave you to your own devices then.

Short of the Belt of Hill Giant Strength, the gaunlets you'll be getting shortly and Better weapons, I'm afraid there's none.

One of the reasons I've noticed why people think the class sucks is because it's pathetic in low levels - which is true anyways.
To get around this, abuse the Bard's thievery abilities and get a lot of wands with a lot of charges to help you on your way. You can either buy them, or recharge them.
You also need to go after better items as early as possible - Belm and Celestial Fury are a must, and so are the gauntlets, the Boots of Speed, The Melodic Chain and the Rings of Gaax. Being a Bard, you can legitimately do this while roleplaying.
Once you have these on you things will go much easier. Yes, things will be easier later.
It's good to know you've noticed this. Being very weak initially, as Bards get more powerful the changes that occur are very distinct, and rewarding IMO.

As for advice, I'm afraid I'll have to leave you on your own lest I spoil things for you.

Just remember spells like Skull Trap, Chromatic Orb, Magic Missile - or any other spell that gets better with levels that you can benefit from earlier considering that you level up faster than most classes.

Which is why you have to rely on items, preferably rechargeable ones since Bards also tend to have gold in limitless supply. This is legitimate because Bards are infamous for their penchant of items. (Roleplay-wise)
Besides, once you get better items you won't have to cast spells most of the time.
Remember that the Bard is also part fighter - he doesn't have to rely entirely on his spells. If you give him the proper equipment (rings of gaax, the Belm +2, boots of speed, Belt of Hill Giant Strength, gauntlets of weapon mastery, etc.) he'll manage. The F/M/T will of course be a better fighter in this state, which is normal and to be expected.
But once each class gains more experience and levels the Bard won't have to cast spells as frequently, and won't have to prepare as much. The F/M/T will have to cast more to catch on to just a few of the Bard's spells.

After all, 50 charges from a Wand of Lightning will bring you far... Or if you hate the concept of recharging, you can just buy a Wand legitimately then.

What Rastor had said may seem harmless, but to me it was sacrilege (pardon the word, but it will give you a rough description of how much steam going off my me then).
I only realized how stupid I reacted just a but earlier than when you posted.

From now on, I shall be more direct in anything I have to say.
The Bard can roughly be compared to an amplifier.
Now, this amplifier is also powerful on its own, but the beauty of it is that it multiplies the power of any other classes proportionally.
Imagine what impossibilites could yet be proven otherwise then. Ironically, I had meant this amplifier when I mentioned the role of a Bard as the singer.
By introducing the Bard's abilities (in some high-mannered way I have yet to fix) I thought I was doing other classes a favor.
It appears otherwise.

The whole point of Bard vS other Classes, by the way, was meant to prove that the Bard can take on anything and maybe live.
This was to show people how versatility can be used as a weapon - one class' weakness used against it, or interjoining several of the abilities of the game in conjunction with one another for a special, powerful attack.
The F/M/T can do somethings similar, but he lacks too much intensity in contrast to the Bard because his levels are too low to count. (This also means fewer HLA's, weaker level-depended abilities etc.)

BTW, I hope you're meaning the new meaning of Jack of all Trades. It just seems that nowadays, Jack-of-all-Trades roughly suggests that the character is not good at anything and is therefore, useless - a common assumption supported by all the other games I've played so far.

[ December 17, 2003, 12:30: Message edited by: Scythesong Immortal ]