On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 Richardson.Paul@... wrote:

>
> As much as I would love a bind song, it would go against how every song works.
> Our songs are not permanent effects. They are not even long lasting. In
> general, the effects we create only last for a few seconds after we stop
> singing or playing our song. Binding is very different: it is a permanent
> change to the environment.

Completely agreed.

> If there was a bind song it could only keep us bound for as long as we sang
> it. Not practical. Even if we did get a permanent bind, could you imagine
> how loud the other melees would scream? If all 7 melee types died in Guk and
> died in Freeport at the same time and started running back, who would arrive
> first without outside aid? The bards of course! We already have the
> advantage over all other melee classes in this area.

Guk, yes (assuming you don't bind in Grobb :). Crushbone,
Mistmoore, Permafrost, and a couple other dungeons, the bard
is the last to arrive due to the excessive time it takes to
memorize our songs (unless you're using all low-level songs).

Getting back to the original question, I think Verant
classifies bards as a "not-a-" class. When casters were given
bind, bards were not-a-caster. When parry and riposte were
given out, bards were not-a-melee. When hybrids got minor
resist bonuses, bards were not-a-hybrid.

The idea that we're not hybrids does have merit. Clerics get
to wear plate because of the taunt effect of heals. You could
make the same argument for bards. Aside from plate, the only
melee things I can think of that bards get over casters are
dual wield, a slightly higher dodge cap, and weapons skills
that increase at 5/lvl (which is moot at level 50 where 4/lvl
reaches the same 200 cap).

--
John H. Kim
kim@...