Just because a HLA does not make sense, it does not mean it is nerfed. The Traps alone mean the Bards have little to complain about when it comes to their choice of HLAs.

~~~~

Illumina Drathiran'ar, ah I see. Still, Clerics do get good HLAs.

Dundee you are certainly right with regards to the potency of traps. It just doesn't make any sense at all. Oh how I wish they would have made HLA's to fit the bard and all four aspects of that class.
Perhaps I shouldn't be complaining. My solo Blade is currently in Watchers Keep just to get a few nitfy things before the final fight. It's the one with <span style="color: #FFFFFF">~snip~. I must presume it is the end.
It's just the spellcasting that bugs me. I have to cast a lot of things from my meager supply of scrolls. Since "ordinary" UAI thieves can do the same thing I kind of feel the Bard loose a bit of the sword dancer spell flinger feeling. I don't want mage spell progression at all. Just a subset of level 7 and 8 spells (e.g. Summoning, Divination and perhaps Evocation - all schools which makes sense for a Bard) if the appropiate HLA have been chosen.

[ 04-27-2004, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: Dundee Slaytern ]

? Thieves cannot memorise spells. Thieves are condemned to cast arcane spells at a spellcaster level of only level 10. Bards on the other hand, can cast at the spellcaster maximum level of 20.

There is no comparison between the Thief and the Bard when it comes to spellcasting. The Bard totally outclasses the Thief in spellcasting.

why does it matter? a wizard should be representet which makes bard nothing...

The Bard is the jack of all trades and master of none. ;)

The Mage is the master of spellcasting and jack-doodle-squat when it comes to melee and thievery.

Both Thief and Bard belong to the Rogue genre. The Mage does not.

Well as I see it a Bard belongs to no genre at all and is placed in the Rogue subset merely for convenience as they use similar level progression, THAC0 and saving throws.
A bard is a warrior. Save true warriors no class can use as much armor and weapons as the bard. Especially the subclass Blade is an excellent swordsman.
A bard is a spellcaster. A bard may memorize spells and have triggers and contingencies. No other class than mages and bards can do that.
A bard is a thief. A thief in the true sense of the word. No tricksy trap stuff. Just the ability to actually steal something from people unaware.
And finally a bard is of course... a bard. A bard has the unique ability to instill battle vigor and morale in fellow companions without limitations such as memorizing and so forth.

I my opinion only three of these aspects are covered in bard HLA's, but not spellcasting. And for that I think it could be nice to grant further spellprogression in one or two spell levels above 6. This will in no way turn a bard into a mage, not by a long shot. I reckon a level 40 bard would have 3 lvl 7 spells and 2 lvl 8 spells - and they would have to level to get them just as spell progression is normally. No Timestop or Planetars or anything. Just a wee bit more spells so you don't feel your bard is standing still after level 30.

I am sorry if I am repeating myself. Like someone mentioned above it's like pointing at your nuclear arsenal and complain about the colour. My Blade has been a genuine rollercoaster for quite some time. I use a bit of cheese, but unlike many other classes I find it just within the Bards character to employ all and every talent.

EDIT:
For other reasons I was down in the basement and I found my old collection of 2ed AD&D books. One of the supplements is called "Dungeon Master Option - High Level Campaigns" and is designed to handle level 20-30 characters. Among other things a lot of the HLA's (e.g. Hardiness) come from that book. There is a spell progression table for high level bards in chapter 7 (table 52)
Lvl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
20 4 4 4 4 4 3 - -
21 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 -
22 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 -
23 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 -
24 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 -
25 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 -
26 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 -
27 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 -
28 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 -
29 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 1
30 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 1

I think it is a misinterpretation of the rules that have lead to the spell level 6 cap, because it is the highest attainable below level 20 for which the original rulebook was designed. I do not live under the false assumption that this proves anything.

FURTHER EDIT (I can't stop!):
I took the liberty of making a 2da file, which use this spell progression table as guideline, but enforces the "max 5 spells pr. level" rule that Black Isle use with additional lowering of 5's and 4's. It can be found here:
www.dsr.kvl.dk/~maddog/mxsplbrd.2da
You need to put it in the override folder, but please remember to backup the existing one found there. It will take effect when you level up. I don't know if I will use it myself yet. It was made in 10 minutes. I think we need some debate first.

[ 04-27-2004, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

The thing... the Mage's spellcasting ability has been nerfed as well in the game, and so correspondingly, so were the other spellcasters.

If you want to be "fair", then you must restore the Mage and Cleric as well, and we all know what sort of headaches that can lead to when the issue of game balance comes into play.

It was not only the Bard that got nerfed. Everybody got nerfed. "Hale", the Thieves got nerfed.

The way I look at it is this.

In PnP, a death was really fatal, unless you had the resources to resurrect. Bumped into a cabal of vampires late at night. Too bad, welcome to sobsville.

In a CRPG though... you have something called a reload, so a slight nerfing in the abilities would be needed to compensate for the sudden drop in difficulty.

So you cosider it a deliberate action to cut down player abilities? Then why did they include everything in that book for the other spellcasting classes. True Dweomers (level 10 spells) for clerics and mages for instance. The mage spell progression has also been dropped considerably that is given, but they haven't cut them short on potency. Less spells mean you have to sleep more often and I hear rumours that it will affect [EDIT] something in the late game [/EDIT].
And it is true that death in PnP is very final, but you have something you'll never have in CRPGs - a DM with a brain. A bard is excellent in PnP because he's a bard. He is the one who people trust with information and in the end he is the one who gain access to the core of the adventure.
If you take a hard look on what a bard and a mage gains between 4400000 xp and 8000000 xp you'll have to agree that something odd is going on. The Bard gains one single spell from almost doubling his xp. I think at least adding a few level 7 and 8 spells to the existing progression would be in order.

EDIT: Removed a mild unwarned spoiler

[ 04-28-2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

It is deliberate. Take a look at the Proficiency Bonuses Table. Grandmastery has become a mocking shadow of its' original PnP version. One has to download a Mod to restore it to what it was in PnP and BG1.

Additionally, not everything has been included for Mages and Clerics. If Mages were allowed to do everything they can do in the PnP version, they will be able to steamroll over the game even more. I mean... I can't get anything I want from Wish, not even resurrection from distegration. I can't summon whales onto my targets. Etc... ...

A lack of DM is precisely another reason why the classes have to be nerfed. Without a human DM, there is nothing to keep the player in check. An AI can only do so much, and furthermore, AIs are predictable.

Again, looking at their gains. One must not focus purely on spellcasting abilities. This is missing the forest for the trees. What does the Bard gain? I say more HLA Traps, Magic Flutes, better HP, and yes, some more spell slots.