Bards, played correctly, are super powerful but for this particular group I might argue are less efficient than necro/mage ... but more efficient/effective than shaman. From a dynamic standpoint, they meet the needs of 3 otherwise capable and (as a group) independent set of toons way more than a shaman could. They aren't a "caster class" though so I excluded the class from my thought process. They don't add much to kill power but they do add a layer of "other" to the group and in extra ways beyond what a shaman can.
Played poorly ... a bard is a waste in most all cases. Some 55 and above don't even appreciate the value of keeping cantana (string mod or not) up as much as possible. Bad bard are bad news and fuck it .... no.
Disclaimer: Troxx (my namesake) was my first to level 60 and is a bard so I have bias. More often than not when you have a person playing bard they don't know ass from elbow. They can (and should be) the WD-40 of eq. Not powerful on their own but they grease up the gears and make everything O SO MUCH easier when played perfectly.
Disclaimer 2: My second to 60 was my shaman.
In this kind of group they offer:
-mana pulse once level appropriate
-up to 3x mana pulse + group mana regen once level appropriate
-potential hp regen/tick to all in group > 50/tick to all (not pets) in group once level appropriate (1/6 torpor but to everyone) along with mana regen
-pulling potential or primary pulling (lull included)
-CC assistance
-Instant snare/slow on incoming
-dot chants (3sec cast each so loading them all up is possible)
But if the group can handle all the CC and doesn't need or wouldn't benefit from the extra's the bard brings - I don't think they would fit in as well as others. If the bard really knows what they are doing and the others are relative mouth-breathers, however, the bard may add a whole heck of a lot.
|