>i don't agree that we are third rate at everything, but that's just my

personal

>opinion.
>if you actually believe this, then why play a bard? it seems that a lot of

your

>dissatisfaction comes from your vision of a bard not agreeing with how a

bard is

>really implemented in everquest.

I'm not sure we are third rate at everything, but things like the lullaby
nerf are distressing. I've gotten left out of two groups in the last week
because they "needed" an enchanter for crowd control. They were both 4 tank
groups so clarity wasn't really an issue. They said, and I believe them,
that if my crowd control songs weren't broken they would have rather had me
in the group since I could help them out with downtime (they had no healers
other than a ranger).

I play a bard primarily for RP reasons, but I think the bard class is a good
one. If they would fix our broken or useless songs we would be fine. Most
of the weakness I perceive in the bard class is not because of Verant's
vision of a bard. It is mostly because Verant has made melee classes so
much less common than casting ones through some of their decisions. EQ is
definitely a caster's game powerwise. Melee characters might get all the
neat toys, but caster's get all the things that make playing easier. If I
played with less casual players maybe it wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Every time I get in a melee heavy group we have a great time and I can
contribut enormously. In a caster heavy group all the weaknesses of the
bard class come to the forefront, and if there's an enchanter present I feel
pretty useless. Unfortunately caster heavy groups seem to outnumber tank
heavy ones by about 5-1 at least.

Kit