i think the fighter/thief will be 'easier' because of stealth - i'm a stealth heavy player myself though (i'm soloing a dwarf fighter/thief in BGII at the moment)

it's quite a time consuming playing style sometimes though - stealth - stab/snipe - stealth . . . i've tried playing stealth free character/parties to break the habit but i always end up buying everbody rings of air control for the invisibility (and the recharge exploit)

i love stealth

i'm so weak . . .

Not "can" but "do" - thieves do use bows all the time, that's part of the problem. We're drawn to the path of least resistance far too frequently. I was asking for people's input in how to deal with the haste without using arrows of dispelling. Not every thief would use a bow. Not every thief character should use a bow.

Ahh, but there's the rub as they say.

My solo bard in BG didn't last that long as I stated above. They're better team players than solo characters. How do you mean they're nerfed later on? Spell-wise?

You're not alone Armen, I love stealth too. Not playing a thief/combination-thief character is almost too much of a temptation to break. I have to do it though, as I'll never get to grips with some of the other character types as well as the thief classes otherwise.

I actually got pretty far with a solo Bard. I figured people could solo mages, and Bards are like mages on the low level world of bg, but with more hit points and armor and weapons and pick pockets!

All of which is true. Considering that you don't get any spells till level 2, you're similar to a better armed/armoured thief with limited abilities I suppose. Having said that then, why do we all find it so difficult to play bards (or solo bards) because it certainly seems like they're a chore for most of us.

The limited amount of spells don't help of course; neither does the restrictions on spell-boosting equipment either. Having either would offset the replacement factor magic has to offer the same way it does for the mage or the cleric because you don't have the full skills of the thief or the fighter to utilise instead. Bards really are jack-of-all-trades, master of none.

BTW krunchyfrogg, how far is "pretty far"?

Because, as a general rule, Bards suck donkey snot. I for one would never play a Solo Bard--hell, I wouldn't even take a party Bard. If they actually were jacks-of-all-trades I would consider it; but as they are, they're only jack of <u>one</u> trade: A crippled Mage who can use most of the best weapons and wear some of the best armors. True, due to the EXP caps of BG1/ToSC, there is little difference between a Mage and a Bard until BG2--but then, I tend not to carry a Mage along until the letter half of BG1 anyway.

I did design a kit once that was an actual jack-of-all-trades; it'll never be made of course, because it's unbalanced. (By which I mean that it blows the entire Bard class right out of the water, and is therefore overpowered.)

Got to Candlekeep (after the city of Baldur's Gate, not just the prologue wise-a$$!) ;)

Where's that adventurous spirit of yours we've come to know and love Six!

Surely that's the challenge of them?

That's not so bad is it? What I'm not keen on is the Blade class kit which seeks to improve areas that aren't really too bad to begin with - the martial side of things - but completley nerf the things bards are supposed to be good at.

I suppose it was too much to ask for a kit that actually boosted the magic skills a bit.

Edit:
Got to Candlekeep (after the city of Baldur's Gate, not just the prologue wise-a$$!) ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Nice one! :D

Double Edit: Why didn't you carry on then?

[ 09-15-2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Lord Brass ]

When I want to play a weakling, I'd rather do it with a character with lousy stats, or by avoiding all the overused items, than by taking an entire character class that's pretty much worthless from the get-go. A character that can either cast spells or wear some armor, and even then can't fight worth crap, and never will be able to? Sure, it's possible to jack a Blade up to a point where, overflowing with all the best buffs and items in the game, he will be able to take on pretty much anything, but is that worth being essentially useless for the other 95% of the time?


That's not so bad is it?</font>[/QUOTE]It is when you look at it in this light:
They are nothing like Fighters, because they don't have the THAC0, AC, ApR, or Saving Throws.
They are nothing like Thieves (except in straight-up fighting skills), because a watered-down version of the single most useless Thieving skill in the game does not a Thief make.
They are nothing like Mages, because they can't cast the really important spells, they gain access to the other spells more slowly, and they can't wear any good Mage equipment.
They can't fight, they can't sneak, they can't cast good spells. Oooo, but they can SING! Pardon me, but I fail to sense the appeal.

Again, I did design a kit, but of course it eclipses the other Bards and is therefore overpowered.

Maybe I will one day. I just kinda lost interest. I rarely cast any spells and wear armor most of the time. I use wands a lot!

All very valid points Six, but my question wasn't really from the perspective of the class/kit itself, but really from a notion of completeness - that you've probably completed the game with a bard at least once. Therefore, all of your points are from in-game observation rather than a paper view of the class.

Aren't these the same thing with a different emphasis or starting point? You would've elected to do either: accept those weak stats or take that weak class. As for overused items, I concur wholeheartedly no matter what character you're playing.

The same for me in the solo game. That's why I teamed up in the end. I still don't think I bothered to use the bardsong more than once. Even then it was more out of curiosity than an attempt to gain a real tactical advantage. I don't play bards that much you see. Not in BG at least. I think my idea of the class has been biased by IWD. If you've played it you'll know what I mean. Krunchyfrogg certainly will.