At 03:49 PM 10/11/00 -0700, you wrote:

>On Wed, Oct 11/00, Jeffrey Sue <jsue@...> wrote:
> > At 03:33 PM 10/11/00 -0700, you wrote:
> > >Yes it can be done. Is the group as effective without an enchanter? Not
> > >by a long shot. Why should one class have the monopoly on bringing that
> > >kind of effectiveness to the group?
> >
> > is a group with a druid or shaman as healer as effective as one without a cleric?

i suck, obviously i meant WITH a cleric, not without a cleric, heh.

>Actually, with an enchanter, yes it is. I went all the way to L50 with a
>group that never had a cleric in it but did have an enchanter and it
>rocked. When you only have to deal with one mob in a fight, ever, a
>cleric is actually a waste of a spot pre 50.

i've been in groups with a cleric in it and no enchanter and it rocked too.
i don't understand how that would prove that an enchanter is a waste of
a spot pre 50. if you have a good feign puller, you will never have more
than one mob. if you have a good bard, you can deal with pulls of 3. we
broke into the efreeti lord room multiple times when we were around level
50 with no enchanter. i would bet that if you had an enchanter but no cleric
it would take much longer because a) no complete heal, b) no superior heal
even, c)unless the druid healer is 49, not nearly as good buffs.

>Crowd control is the most powerful skill in the game and it's the
>exclusive domain of the enchanter.
>
>--