Baldur's Gate : The Sword Coast Chronicles : NWN2 Persistent World

Would balancing Bards and Favored Souls ever be considered? I mean they have incredible power builds and clearly stand out as the most powerful classes. What do yall think?

Can`t say i ever saw my bard as op. Without requiem they are just weaker fighters with some useful spells. They don`t do 500 damage to multiple enemies as certain pure casters do that i have seen.

Considering a min/maxed dragon druid outpowers either of these classes in PVE and PVP, and does so effortlessly... I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

I play a bard pretty exclusively, and from a PVE standpoint it looks like there have been great strides already taken to limit a bards power. You think finding sneak gear is hard? Try to find perform gear. Most bosses have 50% sonic immunity for no lore-appropriate reason. Run of the mill fire giants...50% sonic immunity for no reason...

If you are talking PVP, well, sonic immunity and mind blank yourself up, and a bard is just a cheap fighter.

let me quote myself


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

allow me to clarify

http://www.bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?p=536764#p536764

Yes, lack of perform gear is such a big issue for bards. What a shit class.


Anyway. When it comes to absolutely wrecking pve content: bard>fs>>>>>>>dragon druid
The only thing dragon druids have going for them is better survivability. If anything, ASD isn't barking up the wrong tree, he just forgot to add that third branch to it. Dragon druids.

At the end of the day, this thread will be filled with pages and pages of arguments and discussion, and it's all a waste of energy. Because nothing will change. Because nothing can change at this point.

Thids wrote:allow me to clarify

http://www.bgtscc.net/viewtopic.php?p=536764#p536764

Yes, lack of perform gear is such a big issue for bards. What a (#2) class.

Yeah, in 2012, did the Balor have 50% sonic immunity then? Did this happen more than once or was it a fluke? A single screenshot does not a trend make. In fact, it only proves what is on the screenshot, which is that the Balor is still alive.

In addition, that is a pure lvl 30 strength bard, not everyone plays that and it is a very specfic build. ANY dragon druid could do that, and wouldn't need the weapon or stats items too boot.

People need to quit pointing at this piece of anecdotal evidence like some sort of holy grail.

)))))))))))))))))))))))

I was actually going to reply to you seriously, but there is absolutely no point.

AlwaysSummer Day wrote: What do yall think?

Bad idea + waste of time that would be best spent doing something actually useful.

Trying to balance D&D is a wasted effort.

What aspect of FS, save for changing individual spells, should be nerfed?

Thids wrote:)))))))))))))))))))))))

I was actually going to reply to you seriously, but there is absolutely no point.

I can only assume this is because you realize you do not have a leg to stand on. I applaud your bowing out gracefully.

But realistically, it is infuriating that you can't even discuss bards without someone going "hey this one thing happened this one time under very specific circumstances so now bards can't ever be seriously discussed again."

Really?

Instead of "balancing" *cough,nerfing,cough* why not try powering some of the other classes up a bit?

I don't see your point, OP.

STR Bard, EDM FS, Dragon Druid, Blaster Warlock, properly built Dwarven Defender, high CL Blood Magi...all top tier builds, that perform at the same level. Before CL fix, F/Ro/WM/FB belonged here too.

"Caster" Druid, EDM Cleric, WIS caster Cleric, Arcane Gishes, decent Monks, decent Arcane casters, decent "Archer" builds...all great when the builds make sense, and can achieve everything one might want if played well.

good Fighter builds (without DD), Spirit Shamans: solid characters, perform well but are somewhat gear dependant and have certain structural limits when soloing (just like your typical vanilla Wizard/ASoC, for instance)

good Swashbuckler builds (with more than Swash 5), Rogue/Assassin types, the best Barbarians you can find: functional, but with one or more glaring weaknesses and usually a saving grace or two that keep them playable. Suited to solo only in a limited amount of areas each, and when partying up you still need to be careful or supported by allies (via buffs, for instance) not to be obliterated by a simple roll of the dice against your weakness.

As you can see, there is (or...was, before patch...now perhaps a tad bit less) a fairly large amount of builds (and almost ALL classes) that can dominate or at least do exceedingly well in PvE. If you play builds with heavy investment in Barbarian, Rogue or Swashbuckler for instance, you've got more issues, but singling out two classes is a wrong move.

Boddynock wrote: People need to quit pointing at this piece of anecdotal evidence like some sort of holy grail.

You have a Bard build, which is less strong than other Bard variants. The OP isn't talking about you. This thread has nothing to do with your Bard. You can say the same for every class: I can build a shit Cleric or Wizard (NOT saying your build is bad...just an example.) and die every 20 mins, but that doesn't mean the classes underperform.

Also, that evidence isn't anecdotal. It's something that has been done to test empirically certain forum statements. It's proof of a theory, therefore scientific. It's as far from anecdotal as it can ever be. It just doesn't apply to you, because you and your case are an anecdote (an important one, since you're an active player, but still one).

Invoker wrote:

Boddynock wrote: People need to quit pointing at this piece of anecdotal evidence like some sort of holy grail.

You have a Bard build, which is less strong than other Bard variants. The OP isn't talking about you. This thread has nothing to do with your Bard. You can say the same for every class: I can build a (#2) Cleric or Wizard (NOT saying your build is bad...just an example.) and die every 20 mins, but that doesn't mean the classes underperform.

Also, that evidence isn't anecdotal. It's something that has been done to test empirically certain forum statements. It's proof of a theory, therefore scientific. It's as far from anecdotal as it can ever be. It just doesn't apply to you, because you and your case are an anecdote (an important one, since you're an active player, but still one).

This evidence is literally the definition of anecdotal evidence:

"Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes. Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a generalized claim; it is, however, within the scope of scientific method for claims regarding particular instances, for example the use of case studies in medicine." [Emphasis added]

A single example given to support a general claim is, I repeat, the literal definition of anecdotal evidence. Even assuming it had the same level of control as say, a case study, a sample size of one is still anecdotal at best, but in reality is nearly meaningless as it does nothing but suggest more testing is needed.

You really like getting worked up over semantics huh

Boddyknock, your quote describes you, your bard, and your build.

That evidence was in support to the claim that STR Bards are strong, and can achieve anything. This because someone, back then, asked for Bards to be buffed, since they were so underpowered.

There is nothing anecdotal about that piece of evidence. It's scientific as anything can be.

Your case, however...

-) You aren't a good example of what bards can achieve as a class (several bard builds are better than yours)
-) You aren't playing a widespread build (in fact, you yourself said it's pretty rare)
-) This thread isn't about you, doesn't consider your build but only your class at large and what it can actually achieve.

You are the anecdote.