How do the screams hold up in PvP?

I started pushing my bard a few months ago, and also really dig it. That said, the combat cyclic choice is... Good, but a bit awkward. Some spells, like gj (yes, in part because its a barrier) are useless compared to dalu aban or aewo.

But yeah, I dig my bard. I hope they get some more guild skill love.

I like Bards and I think they are strongly situated in many ways, as has been pointed out, but not over powered. Personally I'm still disappointed about losing the teaching ability because it was a nice lore ability and Bardic.

I'm not anything more than disappointed though.

>Couldn't you just hide on him?

I'm curious to know if Sanctuary is any good vs. thieves and what Noopin did if not use it.

>I've enjoyed training/playing the Bard the most because of how easy it is for them to train effectively.

>>I disagree.

Maybe we're at different skill levels, but I've also enjoyed the ease of magic training (via cyclics) my entire guild career.

> Personally I'm still disappointed about losing the teaching ability because it was a nice lore ability and Bardic.

This pretty much says it all for me. Did I use combat teaching? Maybe, but I don't really know for sure. Am I going to miss it? Not really. Am I annoyed that we're taking from the have-nots? Yes. Yes I am.

> I'm curious to know if Sanctuary is any good vs. thieves and what Noopin did if not use it.

I would assume the anti-hiding part would, but if you're using sanctuary then can't use pyre. That leaves you with BoS + weapons, which are both secondaries.

> Maybe we're at different skill levels,

I'm not saying cyclics aren't great. It's a nice relaxed way to train; however, straight casting with symbiosis (especially skills that train multiple skills at once) feel far more effective in quickly ranking up mind states.

The only thing Bards are lacking right now is a viable guild skill ability system.

---

Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators

> I think part of the issue is that it's a bit weird that people are viewing Bards as have-nots.
> The only thing Bards are lacking right now is a viable guild skill ability system.

Maybe I am looking at this wrong, but here's where I see the guild needs something.

1. A reason to train bardic lore other than to circle/TDPs.

2. A reason to train performance other than to circle/TDPs.

3. A way to benefit all crafts, something that's become the hallmark of our primary skillset. (Before you say I should be happy with what I have, imagine if a ranger had to give up guild bonuses to hiding and stealth because they wanted to have a bonus on skinning. Imagine if a cleric had to permanently align to a specific god or had to gain hundreds more ranks to cap spells they weren't aligned to. Imagine if a warrior mage permanently had to choose a spell branch for their buffing spells to benefit (ie: only TM bonuses on ice))

4. Defensive abilities, but frankly everyone sucks there.

5. A way to custom tailor the cyclic power of the past. With Magic 3.0 we have a LOT more on-demand abilities. That's fantastic. I love it, but it also cut up (and effectively watered down) our cyclic abilities to compensate. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem, except for #6. What would be fantastic is to craft our own preferred cyclic - power song if you will - with the effects we want. Maybe too strong, but it would be amazing. We have three abilities to choose from and we can mix and match them into a cyclic in the same way other guilds can stack buffs and abilities (see #8).

6. A lot of redundancy, expensive effects, and exclusions. Cyclics all exclude other cyclics. Elemental transformations exclude other transformations. Pyre and Aban feel very similar to each other in effect. Please don't read this as a complaint that we have too many debilitators. I like that. I just want to build my cyclic by having a base damage spell (like pyre) and then paying for meta spells to add on additional effects (such as 1 slot for naptha, one slot for fatigue, two slots + lvl 60 for a second spirit hit, one slot for vitality hit, etc...)

7. On that, we spend A LOT of spell slots for abilities we don't want. Don't care about naptha? Too bad. You need to spend a slot for it if you want an AOE TM spell. Want an AOE fatigue or spirit attack on top of this? All yours for 10 more spell slots. for your AOE TM spell. and I still haven't figured out why I would want to spend 5 slots on aban if I already have had pyre.

8. They need something that other guilds want. If no one is saying, "I wish I was a bard because of <bard thing>" then there's a problem. (And don't say Muse - Warrior mages are generally better at casting it.)

But like I said. I'm open to correction if I'm wrong. Feel free to point it out.

Volcanis, I think you're way off the mark on this one -

>1. A reason to train bardic lore other than to circle/TDPs.

Sure, but this isn't new to the game - A lot of guild skills only represent unlocks (i.e., circle requirements) for various guild specific abilities. I don't think Bardic Lore persay need be linked to something specifically, but I do think Bards need more guild specific things than just three screams and the ability to get cool flavor text in some areas.

>2. A reason to train performance other than to circle/TDPs.

Why? Almost all guilds have some thing they're required to spend time doing. Some guilds have that tied to combat, some don't. It'd be cool if Performance did more than just let you produce neat flavor text from some items, but that's not specifically tied to having Performance as a requirement.

>3. A way to benefit all crafts, something that's become the hallmark of our primary skillset. (Before you say I should be happy with what I have, imagine if a ranger had to give up guild bonuses to hiding and stealth because they wanted to have a bonus on skinning. Imagine if a cleric had to permanently align to a specific god or had to gain hundreds more ranks to cap spells they weren't aligned to. Imagine if a warrior mage permanently had to choose a spell branch for their buffing spells to benefit (ie: only TM bonuses on ice))

Actually, I don't think it's reasonable to say that being Lore prime means Bards/Empaths/Traders are 'the crafting guilds'. After arguing it, I'm convinced that WotM is actually the best craft buff in game, which yes, means you should be happy with what you have.

>4. Defensive abilities, but frankly everyone sucks there.

DALU, Name, and Harmony represent a pretty sweet suite of defensive buffing. Offensively, DRUMs, DALU (I love this spell), RAGE (still buffs OF, beat that), Resonance, and a flexible menagerie of rituals for some more customization, to say nothing of ABAN/PYRE/BoS.

I think Bards are in a pretty sweet spot, but as I've said, a few of their cyclics need love to be taken seriously or as anything other than just a training spell.

>5. A way to custom tailor the cyclic power of the past. With Magic 3.0 we have a LOT more on-demand abilities. That's fantastic. I love it, but it also cut up (and effectively watered down) our cyclic abilities to compensate. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem, except for #6. What would be fantastic is to craft our own preferred cyclic - power song if you will - with the effects we want. Maybe too strong, but it would be amazing. We have three abilities to choose from and we can mix and match them into a cyclic in the same way other guilds can stack buffs and abilities (see #8).


If this is in reference to your proposed idea of metaspelling up a bunch of our abilities, I agree, but I don't think this is a must.

>6. A lot of redundancy, expensive effects, and exclusions. Cyclics all exclude other cyclics. Elemental transformations exclude other transformations. Pyre and Aban feel very similar to each other in effect. Please don't read this as a complaint that we have too many debilitators. I like that. I just want to build my cyclic by having a base damage spell (like pyre) and then paying for meta spells to add on additional effects (such as 1 slot for naptha, one slot for fatigue, two slots + lvl 60 for a second spirit hit, one slot for vitality hit, etc...)

I disagree - there are a few useless cyclics (GJ), but cyclics SHOULD be a combat choice. A bard should not be able to run ABAN and DALU. Bards are, unfortunately, in the most game balance place with respect to this - more guilds should have to make this decision in combat.

If you want more customizability on your cyclics, I think that'd be a really sweet feature of Bards, but ultimately if it's not handled right, it's just going to result in things staying the same as people take all the metaspells.

>7. On that, we spend A LOT of spell slots for abilities we don't want. Don't care about naptha? Too bad. You need to spend a slot for it if you want an AOE TM spell. Want an AOE fatigue or spirit attack on top of this? All yours for 10 more spell slots. for your AOE TM spell. and I still haven't figured out why I would want to spend 5 slots on aban if I already have had pyre.

Literally the only place I see this being an issue is with DRUMS also buffing Locksmithing. Shrug. If you haven't figured out why ABAN is worth it, or even better than PYRE, I'm not sure what to tell you.

>8. They need something that other guilds want. If no one is saying, "I wish I was a bard because of <bard thing>" then there's a problem. (And don't say Muse - Warrior mages are generally better at casting it.)

I think this is a problem on other people's ends, not on Bards. If you don't think (just looking at some of the combat suite) having three pulse to group combat spells + a weapon buff + an extrodinarily unique TM aoe cyclic + one of the games top two most potent debils + at least 3 more awesome debils, I don't know what to tell you.

Seriously, bards are rad. They need a bit of massaging, but what guild aside from Clerics really doesn't?

> You must have missed cyclics on scrolls. The only reason people don't want those anymore is we took them away from everyone except Bards and then hammered cyclic learning (Again, except Bards).

Pretty sure Bards follow the same rules as everyone else for cyclic learning.

>>4. Defensive abilities, but frankly everyone sucks there.

>Uh... okay?

I'm not sure what he meant by this, but one thing we need is a new warding to take the place of GJ as the intro warding spell. Obviously this is the sort of thing that needs to wait until after barriers settle.

>8. They need something that other guilds want. If no one is saying, "I wish I was a bard because of <bard thing>" then there's a problem. (And don't say Muse - Warrior mages are generally better at casting it.)

Bards have more magic secondary DPS by a mile than a magic prime moon mage. Their AOE tm/debil/aug/ward/util is unparalleled. I want DMRS. DMRS is superior to Mind Shout in almost every single way.

---

Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

> A lot of guild skills only represent unlocks (i.e., circle requirements)
> Why? Almost all guilds have some thing they're required to spend time doing.

How many other guild skills literally have no functional use except to circle with or message the room?

> I'm convinced that WotM is actually the best craft buff in game, which yes, means you should be happy with what you have.

The point is that WoTM is available to everyone. You could completely remove bards from the game, leaving only their spell scrolls, and that wouldn't change. In fact, a warrior mage of equal time investment will do more with a WoTM scroll than the bard could until their secondaries caught to the WM primaries.

As for lore primes, what else is their primary skillset good for? It's like saying that you're survival, but we only want you buffing your highest survival skill.

> 4. Defensive abilities, but frankly everyone sucks there.

Fair enough. I'll step off that soap box.

> If this is in reference to your proposed idea of metaspelling up a bunch of our abilities, I agree, but I don't think this is a must.
> I disagree - there are a few useless cyclics (GJ), but cyclics SHOULD be a combat choice.

Kind of. I miss the old bard. I liked having a strong utility cyclic, a strong life saving cyclic, a strong defensive cyclic, a strong offensive cyclic, a strong debilitation cyclic, etc.. I'm still dealing with the growing pains of having several moderate to good and mutually exclusive cyclics. It lacks the "oomph" I think of when I think bard.


> Literally the only place I see this being an issue is with DRUMS also buffing Locksmithing.

Fortunately, I like the lockpicking buff. It's my primary usage of drums.

This is what I was thinking:

* Aban: 3 slot base spirit damage + 2 for fatigue (possibly adding it to both pyre and aban).
* Pyre: Naptha (ignore as it turns out to be a freebee)
* Eye: Dark sight base (free or 1 slot, +1/2 for the spot effect in a meta - need perception boost back or at least a point)
* AEWO: Immobilize base. Put mana regen nerf into a meta. (1 slot base, + 1 for meta) Feels too PvP.
* DMRS: Knock down base, stun in meta (2 slots base, +2 for meta)
* Hodi: Vitality + Fatigue base, spirit (+concentration?) in meta (1 slot base, +1 for spirit)
* GJ: Affect everyone base. Only affect spells cast at me in a meta (1 slot base, + 1 for meta)
* Sanc: Anti-clairvoyance base. Spawn restriction in meta (1 base, +1 meta)

And that's just the cyclics. Again, not sure this is doable or even worth it - it looks like the GMs have said no, so there you have it.

> having three pulse to group combat spells + a weapon buff + an extrodinarily unique TM aoe cyclic + one of the games top two most potent debils + at least 3 more awesome debils, I don't know what to tell you.

Let's be honest here. What do the pulse to group spells provide that most guilds can't buff themselves?

Rage: OF buff. Good, but lots of guilds have this.
Pride: -Fear buff. Who cares outside of specific PvP scenarios?
Tears: Good for now, likely won't be in the barrier review.
Drums: Agility buff (available to most guilds) and lockpicking (rarer than most).
Care: Keeps instruments dry (great for giving others TDPs, but outshined by a roof).

> Seriously, bards are rad.

I agree. That's why I play a bard as my main. They're not overpowered (good thing, but the original point), but like I said earlier, I miss the feel of my old bard.

>How many other guild skills literally have no functional use except to circle with or message the room?

A better question is aside from Backstab, can you name any that have a function? Thanatology is tied to Vivisection success, and Trading I think ties to bundle/gem pouch sale increases, but afaik, every guild skill is basically tied to existing activities or just circling/room messaging skills. For example, Theurgy, Expertise, Astrology, and Summoning are all basically just 'may unlock some additional things at a certain point' or 'circling'.

>The point is that WoTM is available to everyone. You could completely remove bards from the game, leaving only their spell scrolls, and that wouldn't change. In fact, a warrior mage of equal time investment will do more with a WoTM scroll than the bard could until their secondaries caught to the WM primaries. As for lore primes, what else is their primary skillset good for? It's like saying that you're survival, but we only want you buffing your highest survival skill.

I challenge you to name a +crafting skill spell that is Signature.

Lore Primaries biggest use in combat is Tactics. That's a no brainer. I think Lore primes should get +tactics skills. Though I think you're placing too much emphasis on skillset placement here - aside from Attunement regen rates, being Magic prime just means it's the strongest suite you bring to bear against opponents. Train harder.


>Kind of. I miss the old bard. I liked having a strong utility cyclic, a strong life saving cyclic, a strong defensive cyclic, a strong offensive cyclic, a strong debilitation cyclic, etc.. I'm still dealing with the growing pains of having several moderate to good and mutually exclusive cyclics. It lacks the "oomph" I think of when I think bard.

Ew, I do not, at all. Old bards were on a totally broken system, and half their spells required you be playing an instrument. That is Bad Times all around.

I don't know what you think is missing here - Sanctuary is a strong utility. Hodierna's Lilt is the strong life saving cyclic. DALU is an outrageously strong defensive cyclic. ABAN/PYRE/DALU are outrageously strong offensive cyclics. AEWO is an awesomely strong debilitation cyclic.

That said, I agree there's a lot of overlap which makes choosing sometimes too difficult a choice to go with. I do think some massaging is required here, but no, nonononono were old bards in any way shape or form 'better'.

>Fortunately, I like the lockpicking buff. It's my primary usage of drums.

Then you're using it wrong - +agility is a useful offensive buff for any one, especially balanced weapon users.

>This is what I was thinking:

Eh, these are all just metaspell breaking up our cyclics, which doesn't actually solve the problem of having too many cyclics too choose from, and some of those cyclics (GJ) not being useful.

>Let's be honest here. What do the pulse to group spells provide that most guilds can't buff themselves?

Well for starters, RAGE is an OF buff, so AFAIK it stacks with literally every other guilds offensive self buffing. Not all guilds can cast their buffs on others, meaning they can't support others, and obviously, not all guilds can buff all things. For example, Moonies don't have an agility buff until they pick up IotS, which is later game. Warmies don't have a non-magical barrier.

I've not actually tested with how these spells stack, so, can't really comment there. Because;

>Rage: OF buff. Good, but lots of guilds have this.

Actually, no, iirc, RAGE is the games only OF buff - every other guild has +stat or +skill offensive buffing.

>Rage: OF buff. Good, but lots of guilds have this.

I agree - I don't use this one myself, because I don't have situations where I can fall prey to SvS but still hunt the critter. Maybe some will come up, but I find this to generally be true of all +contest spells.

>Tears: Good for now, likely won't be in the barrier review.

That's a little glass is half empty, but, yes, as you say, Good for now.

>Drums: Agility buff (available to most guilds) and lockpicking (rarer than most).

Clerics, Warmies (MoF instead of AeG), Empaths (Vigor), Clerics (Bene), Barbs (Wildfire), Thieves (Focus), Rangers (CS instead of BES), and Moonies (IotS). Wide range, not sure if it stacks, still seems useful.

>Care: Keeps instruments dry (great for giving others TDPs, but outshined by a roof).

Didn't even realize this pulsed to people - neat.

Badgopher, everything you listed as an unlock is something that could be circle based. Expertise, Empathy, Astrology, Theurgy, and Thanatology (though it's involved in Vivi along with Stealth, both prime, so, meh), Summoning, Trading, all again circle based unlocks.

>Badgopher, everything you listed as an unlock is something that could be circle based. Expertise, Empathy, Astrology, Theurgy, and Thanatology (though it's involved in Vivi along with Stealth, both prime, so, meh), Summoning, Trading, all again circle based unlocks.

Not really?

DR is not a level based game. You get the ranks in the guild skill, you get the results (correcting for stat/etc. discrepencies and/or assuming you've got the requisite abilities unlocked). They're all powered on the level of the skill, even if most have some type of level-based unlocking structure. A person with 2000 ranks in backstab and level 1 would do significantly better than someone with 1 rank in backstab (if all else held the same) at level 200. Same for all of them, as far as I'm aware.

Here's my own personal list of what the guild needs, which agrees with some but not all of the others.

1. Useful, interesting, and powerful abilities for Bardic Lore.

2. Same for Performance.

3. Something that makes Bards somehow special and desired by others occasionally. This was a popular request at the Bard meeting. We are a support guild and I think many of us want to be more helpful/needed.

4. Heritages would be nice.

5. Something that expands our group-enhancing repertoire.

6. Something involving Tactics.

7. Something to make the cyclic focus more of a perk.

>>4. Defensive abilities, but frankly everyone sucks there.

I recently did a comparison of combat buffs between Bards, Warrior Mages, Clerics, and Moon Mages. In my opinion, Clerics came out on top (wow, five stat buffs?!), then WMs, then Bards, and MMs were way in last. From what I hear, Thieves are terribly suited for combat/defense buffs too. That puts Bards about the middle of the road. I'm pretty happy with our defensive situation. I do wish evasion and stealth were in our SOI -- at least stealth rather than thievery.

>>More meta-spell ideas, adding cyclic slots.

This is a neat idea, and I'd love it if it could be done even in limited fashion.

>>As for lore primes, what else is their primary skillset good for? It's like saying that you're survival, but we only want you buffing your highest survival skill.

Bards can buff four lores: Performance, Scholarship, Bardic Lore, and highest craft. That's pretty good. Warrior Mages can only buff TM. I'd still like to see a Tactics buff but that's about it.

> Warrior Mages can only buff TM.

You can't discount scrolls of the same mana type.

Soul will give them charisma, augmentation, and debilitation.
Echo will give them intelligence, atunement, and sorcery.

> My point is that it's not uncommon to only be able to buff some of one's primary skills.

Fair enough.

Sorry, meant to write - I disagree that nearly all guild skills are skill checks. There are some involved, obviously, but by in large, guild skill is a circling benchmark for ability unlocks.

... Vivisection doesn't use thanatology.

-Raesh

"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose

I stand corrected. I missed that particular update.

-Raesh

"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose

>the ideas I put forward were officially shot down (fine

FWIW, despite disagreeing with you on some other points, I think your idea for how bardic magic could be different than everyone elses magic was awesome, and were it feasible to implement, I'd have dug it.

I'm surprised to hear people say Performance is a drag to train - if you keep your combats in line with it, you can sort of train it in combat, and otherwise, it's just spending some time with an instrument. Compared to all the other guild skills, it's pretty easy. You can train magics while you're playing, or at worst if you don't have a weather proof instrument, you can train Utility with Care. And it's weaponized with SCREAM CONC.