I made a typo with #1. Meant to say melee/hybrids get the option to
accept/decline the bind similar to the resurrect spell. This avoids
malicious binds deep in enemy territory.

Galtin of E'ci

> 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.
> >
> >
>