[<a href='13251.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='13249.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='13256.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='13248.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 13250 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Wed Jan 19 02:36:38 GMT 2000 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Ken Bachman <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Are we Hybrids? <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-579037189">Robin Wise 3 wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; <br/>
&gt; Regardless of whether bards are or are not hybrids, I think Verant&#39;s<br/>
&gt; publicly expressed logic for why some classes get bind is easy to apply to<br/>
&gt; bards.  They claim that &quot;casters&quot; get bind because they die more often.  I<br/>
&gt; contend that bards die as often as any single casting class.<br/>
&gt; <br/>
&gt; Aloro Silvertongue (E&#39;ci)<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>I have to agree.  I&#39;ve seen where Verant has stated that bind was given to <br/>
casters in order to make up for their increased death rate.  I am quite <br/>
convinced that Bards die at least as often as any caster class (does anyone <br/>
want to argue this point?).  So why don&#39;t we get bind?  Not that I care at <br/>
this point, having several level 39+ clerics in my guild...<br/>
<br/>
Kenross Cantoforjado, 40 songs, Innoruuk</div>