>Message: 24
> Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:24:46 -0600
> From: Mike.Langlois@...
>Subject: Re: Are we Hybrids?
>

> >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.
>
> >The one exception to this is the charismatic catillion.
>
>I agree that all of our songs are temporary. But I would point out that
>all spells in the game are temporary, with the exception of Bind. Magician
>summoned items are no-rent, and all others are buffs, DD's, DoT's, Heals,
>etc. There are no environment altering spells in the game that I know of
>except Bind. Perhaps a case could be made for Mem Blur, but that's one
>spell out of 700.

Excellent example... and one which holds equally true for bards. When you
play Solon's Song of the Sirens, you *permanently* erase the damage register
of the charmed monster. This song removes, for the remainer of the
monster's lifespan, all recollection of who did damage to it.

The delineation of melee skills is compelling in my eyes as one reason bards
are not hybrids. As John said, we're "not-a", or put another way we share
characteristics of many classes without being classified as a member of that
class. We're kinda like rogues (silly skills), kinda like enchanters (some
buffs, debuffs, and crowd control), kinda like shamans (some more buffs,
minor healing). Yet we're not-a-fighter, not-a-healer, not-a-caster. We
got plate mail for no other reason I can see than because we get hit so
often - like clerics we were judged to be too fragile to drape in leather
granted our huge taunt power and low hit points.

I think Verant calls us hybrids only because they're trying to simplify the
description of classes. I think a more honest and accurate division would
be as follows: there are 3 fighter classes (warrior, monk, rogue); 3 healer
classes (cleric, shaman, druid); 4 caster classes (wizard, magician,
enchanter, necromancer), 3 hybrid classes (ranger, paladin, shadowknight);
and 1 bard class (bard). Our songs are NOT like the spells of any other
class in the way they are implemented (pulses? what's a pulse? why would I
weave spells?); we have unique nondisposable spell foci (instruments) which
are required for some spells (e.g. Shauri's Sonorous Clouding) and augment
others; and almost every one of our spells improves linearly with the level
of the caster. Plus of course there's the fact that we only get one spell
per level (well, in theory anyways). Ok, ok, they're songs, not spells - we
differentiate our effects from all other casters', don't we? = )

Regardless of whether bards are or are not hybrids, I think Verant's
publicly expressed logic for why some classes get bind is easy to apply to
bards. They claim that "casters" get bind because they die more often. I
contend that bards die as often as any single casting class. Regardless of
arguments about travel time (e.g. bards don't need binding because they run
so fast - which would also eliminate druids from needing bind, as they can
SoW, SoC, and port about), the reason why some classes have bind is claimed
to be due solely to the frequency of deaths of said class.

Some food for thought, anyways...

Aloro Silvertongue (E'ci)
~Flying Brethren~
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com