I agree with you. Changing the binding policy will change the fighting dynamic.
Melee/hybrids will get to spend more time adventuring instead of wasting time
running across multiple zones to get their corpse. As a casual gamer who
doesn't get to play that often, this is why I support a change to the policy.
Also, groups will be less likely to break up if their tanks die because they now
don't have to wait a long time for them to return.

I think one of Verant's concerns is that if they change the bind policy, it
would be easier for groups to take out the uber-mobs like Lady Vox.
Melee/hybrid classes could just loot their corpse and reenter the battle. What
if the rules were changed to reflect something like along these lines:

1) Any class can get bound anywhere. Melee/hybrids get the option to Players
without the bind spell
2) If a character gets killed, and the mob that killed them is still alive when
they reappear at their bind point, that character can no longer do damage to
the mob. This would not apply if the character was resurrected.

There are probably several different ways this could be worked but I think
something along these lines would be required as a tradeoff for the change to
the binding policy

Galtin of E'ci

> Very good point. From what I have gathered, it seems the biggest complaint
> about giving a melee class the ability to bind, or be bound by a caster, is
> that it would change the fighting dynamic. And it obviously would. That
> being said, the one major point that has not been proposed by other players
> is a sense of difficulty or loss with getting a melee player bound.
>
> Add in song difficulty and reagents, coupled with real EXP loss to the
> person getting bound (2 full bubbles of lost exp would really make a melee
> person question getting bound or not, of course the song singer should take
> considerable less exp loss :=) ). and the argument becomes less clear.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
>