[<a href='21847.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='21845.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='21847.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='21842.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 21846 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Wed Oct 11 23:51:52 BST 2000 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Jeffrey Sue <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [eqbards] I posted this to the Everwhatever boards and to the Concert Hall <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-810458069">At 03:33 PM 10/11/00 -0700, you wrote:<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt;Yes it can be done. Is the group as effective without an enchanter? Not<br/>
&gt;by a long shot. Why should one class have the monopoly on bringing that<br/>
&gt;kind of effectiveness to the group?<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>is a group with a druid or shaman as healer as effective as one without a cleric?<br/>
it&#39;s the same thing.  yeah there may be a &#39;&#39;perfect group&#39;&#39; template, but it doesn&#39;t<br/>
happen a whole lot.  what i bring to a group is the ability to make a group that<br/>
doesn&#39;t fit that perfect template workable, yeah, maybe not quite as efficiently<br/>
as an enchanter might or a shaman might or a ranger might, but we kill stuff,<br/>
it&#39;s fun, and no one gets killed.</div>