[<a href='7479.html'>Next Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='7477.html'>Previous Message in Time</a>] | 
[<a href='7486.html'>Next Message in Topic</a>] | 
[<a href='7474.html'>Previous Message in Topic</a>] <br/><br/>
<b>Message ID:</b> 7478 <br/>
<b>Date:</b> Fri Oct  1 00:24:09 BST 1999 <br/>
<b>Author:</b> Kimes, Dean W. <br/>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: Question... <br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-89684989">When I started playing I had an EQ manual and a cd.  There was zero useful<br/>
info on how the classes broke down.  I picked a class that I thought would<br/>
be fun.  It is fun.  I do enjoy my class.  Do I get frustrated by seemingly<br/>
arbitrary things my class does not have?  Absolutely.  Would I play this<br/>
class knowing everything I know now if I had not grown attached to the<br/>
character that is Kitasi?  Probably not, doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t enjoy Kitasi<br/>
but if some bug rendered him unrecoverable I am not sure I would start up<br/>
another bard without some changes having been made.  Not sure what class<br/>
would fit my image better, an enchanter maybe, gotta love any spell that<br/>
allows me to do more quests which only leaves enchanters and bards.  Hard to<br/>
say, but just because I am having fun doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t see room for<br/>
improvement.  After all the reverse argument must hold true if the primary<br/>
one does.  If binding is not such a big deal, then why don&#39;t all the classes<br/>
eventually get it at some level.  Point is, it is a big deal, just a big<br/>
deal that has been arbitrarily assigned to some classes and not others<br/>
because of some idea of a world system.  Not necessarily bad in most cases,<br/>
but I think it is in this case.  If I lived in Hawaii like some on this list<br/>
I would despair of ever getting bound in my what would be my prime playing<br/>
hours.  You better know someone real well who can bind and you would<br/>
probably be restricted to playing with those people where those people<br/>
wanted to play.<br/>
<br/>
-----Original Message-----<br/>
From: Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)<br/>
[mailto:<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:Michael.Garramone@...">Michael.Garramone@...</a>]<br/>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 1999 5:14 PM<br/>
To: &#39;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:eqbards@onelist.com">eqbards@onelist.com</a>&#39;<br/>
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Question...<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
From: &quot;Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:Michael.Garramone@...">Michael.Garramone@...</a>&gt;<br/>
<br/>
is anyone happy with the classes they play?  besides me i guess.  you do<br/>
know all of these particular things were in effect since the game came out.<br/>
did you expect them to change?<br/>
<br/>
Shada<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> &gt; 	No bind, not a caster class<br/>
&gt; 	No Parry, not a melee class<br/>
&gt; 	No special weapons, not a hybrid class<br/>
&gt; 	etc., etc., etc. </span></blockquote></div>