[<a href='6937.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='6935.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='6937.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='6935.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 6936 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Wed Sep 22 16:56:14 BST 1999 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Greg Gillan <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Petiton to replace level 14 song <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-1470007636">Okay, first off, let me apologize for calling your idea silly.<br/>
<br/>
Look at it this way though.  We get a different song every level.  Sure, not<br/>
all of them are useful, but at least every song is different.  We have 50<br/>
songs (or will if they ever get around to adding the missing 4 or so) and<br/>
there is almost no overlap.  Each song has a pretty unique effect such that<br/>
I am still finding a use for my level 1 and 2 songs at level 41.  Many of<br/>
our songs become more powerful as we level, making low level songs still<br/>
very viable at very high levels.<br/>
<br/>
In contrast, look at casters.  They get maybe 8 to 12 spells every four<br/>
levels (assuming the &quot;pure&quot; casting classes).  However, every 4 to 8 levels<br/>
many of their spells are replaced with more powerful versions of previous<br/>
ones.  This actually leaves for very little variety.  You won&#39;t find a level<br/>
50 mage still using a level 4 pet.  That spell has become useless.<br/>
Comparing us to casters by saying they get a couple pages of spells every<br/>
few levels doesn&#39;t seem reasonable when you consider how many of their<br/>
spells are rendered completely useless by a more powerful version.<br/>
<br/>
This is why I didn&#39;t like your idea, but I meant no offence.  Its like a<br/>
mage saying all their pet spells should be replaced with more useful things,<br/>
and just make their low level pet get more powerful with levels.  <br/>
<br/>
When you look at it this way, I don&#39;t really see how casters have more<br/>
spells to chose from than we do.<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
Elwyn Heartstring<br/>
Level 41 Bard<br/>
Erollisi Marr<br/>
<br/>
-----Original Message-----<br/>
From: Blair, Keith (Keith Blair) [mailto:<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:kblair@...">kblair@...</a>]<br/>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 1999 11:46 AM<br/>
To: <a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:eqbards@onelist.com">eqbards@onelist.com</a><br/>
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Petiton to replace level 14 song<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
From: &quot;Blair, Keith (Keith Blair)&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:kblair@...">kblair@...</a>&gt;<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="ireply"> &gt; We are not casters.  This comparison is silly.<br/>
<br/>
 </span></blockquote>If you wish to nitpick, then you are correct. We&#39;re<br/>
not casters. But we have the equivilant of spells<br/>
in our songs. We get *one* &#39;mystical power&#39; per level<br/>
whereas other characters get *multiple* &#39;mystical<br/>
powers&#39; per level. These &#39;mystical powers&#39; are the<br/>
backbone of our class just as they are the backbone<br/>
of the other classes. <br/>
<br/>
Does that fit your requirements a bit better? The<br/>
comparison isn&#39;t silly at all. We only get one<br/>
song per level. It would be nice to have that only<br/>
song be worthwhile. The poster I replied to was<br/>
comparing a caster having a useless &#39;power&#39; to our<br/>
having a useless &#39;power&#39;. I was pointing out that<br/>
when we have a single useless &#39;power&#39; it&#39;s not the<br/>
same as a caster since they get more of these to<br/>
choose from than we do.<br/>
<br/>
There&#39;s nothing silly in that.</div>