> From: "Kimes, Dean W." <Dean_Kimes@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: Pets (was Rumors)
>
> You being the cleric guy, how do you feel about magicians having better
> healing spells for their pets than clerics do for others now? I cannot
> fathom this change personally, it seems to be incredibly anti-group

oriented

> to me. Maybe now magicians will stop whining about necros with pets

soling

> to 35th since they can too.

Good of you to remember. But things change. I haven't played my cleric in
2 months. I'm spending most of my time on my mage (lvl 12) or necro (lvl
9). If you can't beat them, join'em.

As to mage's healing pets, I don't think clerics have any problem with it.
Mages can only heal their pets, nothing else. It's difficult for a cleric
to monitor a pet's hp. Plus a cleric has enough to heal usually.

From the mage's perspective, healing pets is not that great. Even the
highest level pet can be summoned for 200 mana. Spending 100 mana (20th lvl
heal) to heal a bubble may be a waste when a fully fresh pet is only 200
mana. And pets heal naturally much faster than players, nearly as fast as
mana regen rate, making healing less needed.

As to the anti-group oriented nature, mages also got the "mana stone
replacement". It is far from actually being a summoned mana stone, but with
the new ban of mana stones on the planes, people might find them useful.
Time will tell.

But to tie this back to Bards, how do Bards feel about not being able to
affect party pets? Other classes can buff, heal, and improve pets. Bards
seem left out in this ability.

Wayne