Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 8252967" data-attributes="member: 92511">And this is where we disagree...or maybe agree with each other, but disagree with the game's design/take. lol. Full casting is, absolutely, baseline for a party caster.My contention is, the Bard is not, nor should ever be considered, a party caster. Your next sentence kinda sums up my thought rather nicely...&quot;Half-casting is a nice bonus to support a character in a non-casting role...&quot; which a precisely why&nbsp; the Bard should have been a half-caster. They aren't a &quot;party caster&quot; but what they are &quot;the best&quot; at?...They are the Support class. Even moreso than Clerics or Druids. The bard, in their &quot;jack of all trades/being good at a bunch of things&quot; makes them the quintessential &quot;Support&quot; class.They aren't there to be on the front line...but they can be. They aren't there to find/dismantle ALL of the traps...but they can help/be another set of eyes and hands. They aren't there to be &quot;the party caster&quot;...but they can absolutely do some of it...lil' divination, lil' illusion, lil' enchantment... free up the party mages for more fireballs, conjurings, serious arcane stuff. Need healing? I can do that. Little magical inspiration for defense or damage boost in combat? I can do that, too. &quot;Woah, can you guys read this? Let me see. Hey, check out this scroll...if I'm reading this right...Incendiary Cloud [FWOOMSHROARBURNYBURN!] Whoops. Sorry.&quot;Fair. I disagree...or rather, agree it shouldn't be the shtick. Being the best Support class is the Bard's shtick. &quot;Jack of all Trades&quot; is just one element of being that and full casting progression, imo, definitely isn't/doesn't have to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 8252967, member: 92511"] And this is where we disagree...or maybe agree with each other, but disagree with the game's design/take. lol. Full casting is, absolutely, baseline for a party caster. My contention is, the Bard is not, nor should ever be considered, a party caster. Your next sentence kinda sums up my thought rather nicely... "Half-casting is a nice bonus to support a character in a non-casting role..." which a [I]precisely[/I] why the Bard should have been a half-caster. They aren't a "party caster" but what they are "the best" at?...They [I]are[/I] [B]the[/B] Support class. Even moreso than Clerics or Druids. The bard, in their "jack of all trades/being good at a bunch of things" makes them the quintessential "Support" class. They aren't there to be on the front line...but they can be. They aren't there to find/dismantle ALL of the traps...but they can help/be another set of eyes and hands. They aren't there to be "the party caster"...but they can absolutely do some of it...lil' divination, lil' illusion, lil' enchantment... free up the party mages for more fireballs, conjurings, serious arcane stuff. Need healing? I can do that. Little magical inspiration for defense or damage boost in combat? I can do that, too. "Woah, can you guys read this? Let me see. Hey, check out this scroll...if I'm reading this right...[I]Incendiary Cloud[/I] [FWOOMSHROARBURNYBURN!] Whoops. Sorry." Fair. I disagree...or rather, agree it shouldn't be the shtick. Being the best Support class is the Bard's shtick. "Jack of all Trades" is just one element of being that and full casting progression, imo, definitely isn't/doesn't have to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification