On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Naeeldar wrote:

>
> Um who said's a pet isn't supposed to be better then another class? Did

I would think that would be common sense. Why play the
"another class" when you can play this class and have a pet
that's better than that "another class"?

Unless you don't believe the classes should be balanced (which
is a valid viewpoint, but yet another reason I don't like
class-based systems).

> verant ever once state that? Again you can do other things to make up for
> melee so it's not unbalancing can my pet mes? charm? mana song ? heal song?
> Or hell can it even think? A pet in no case is a replacement for a real
> thinking tank not once have I ever seen somebody go no we don't want you for
> our group we got a necro pet or a magician pet.

You'd have a point if the necro class were just the pet.
It's not - it's the necro and the pet. No the pet can't
charm, but you can. No the pet can't regen mana, but you can.
No the pet can't nuke/DoT/buff, but you can. No the pet can't
think, but you can.

Like I said, if the idea of casting classees having pets that
can melee better than or almost as well as melee classes makes
sense, then so does the idea of melee classes having pets that
can cast spells better than or almost as well as casting
classes. /pet heal me, /pet nuke <target>, /pet evac us, /pet
mes <target>, /pet buff <target>, and make them regen mana 5x
faster than players (which is approx how fast pets heal).

--
John H. Kim
kim@...