[<a href='20027.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='20025.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='0.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='0.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 20026 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Mon Jun 26 23:06:45 BST 2000 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Kimes, Dean W. <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> grouping thread on the Everquest boards <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-158184334">Has anyone else been sent this thread or looked at it?<br/>
<br/>
<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="http://boards.station.sony.com/everquest/Forum4/HTML/056356.html">http://boards.station.sony.com/everquest/Forum4/HTML/056356.html</a><br/>
<br/>
I read the thread and was appalled to see that bards, supposedly the best<br/>
group class according to &quot;The Vision&quot; were seldom listed as being desirable.<br/>
<br/>
This quote left me especially tanked off.  <br/>
<br/>
&quot;A *good* Bard, i.e. one that puts away the stupid weapons and uses their<br/>
DoTs with instruments, managing mob agro properly, can add the the group.<br/>
But most Bards are clueless schmucks, so it isn&#39;t worth trying to educate<br/>
them as they flail away with their Yaks and no Double Attack.&quot;<br/>
<br/>
Maybe tanked wasn&#39;t the right word to use there ;-)<br/>
<br/>
I have been emailed this thread by 6 people now!  A couple of them even<br/>
suggested it made sense and that since an enchanter was so much more vital<br/>
to a good group and basically rendered the bard obsolete, I should retire my<br/>
bard and work on getting one of my more viable classes leveled up.  It was<br/>
suggested, though never directly stated, that an enchanter made having a<br/>
bard more or less a waste of time unless you really needed manasong.<br/>
<br/>
Someone save me before I start screamin&#39; again.<br/>
<br/>
	Kitasi Faegehearper<br/>
<br/>
	The Forcibly Retired Bard of E&#39;ci ???</div>