Why is it that you calssify hybrids by armor? In a real definition your
going to classify hyrbids by skills not armor or weapons. A hybrid is a mix
of skills from two or more classes ( hence bard being a hybrid ). This is
the most obvious definition that Verant is using although there are others
for now priests are not hybrids.
Naeeldar
-----Original Message-----
From: Lange, Stephen <
SLANGE@...>
To: '
eqbards@onelist.com' <
eqbards@onelist.com>
Date: Friday, October 01, 1999 10:37 AM
Subject: RE: [eqbards] Hey this sounded interesting..
>From: "Lange, Stephen" <SLANGE@...>
>
>
>From: "Garramone, Michael (CCI-Las Vegas)" <Michael.Garramone@...>
>
>bards are tough to categorize. if it comes down to it and a gun is put to
>my head, i'll say we are hybrids and i think verant says the same. since
we
>bards are such a mixture of everything, let's take bards out of the
>equation. now as far as the definition of hybrid: The offspring of the
>union of two distinct species (or classes in this case). by definition you
>can not classify shaman, cleric, or druid as hybrids.
>
>We are looking at the "Hybrid" designation from different perspectives. I
>see a Hybrid as Magic + Armor/Weapons/Skills or a Melee class. Pure
>Casts/Priests all can melee with a weapon subset, hybrids get casting plus
a
>larger subset of weapons and true armor.
>
>Class Armor (Plate/Magic Subset)
>Wizard No
>Enchanter No
>Necromancer No
>
>Cleric Yes
>Shaman Yes
>Ranger Yes
>Shadowkight Yes
>Paladin Yes
>
>Fighter Yes/Default
>Rogue Yes
>
>Im sorry, but you have to looks at a classes restrictions. The simple fact
>is, pure casters cannot wear True Armor. Hybrids can wear a limited
subset,
>and Melee'ers can wear all. Do you refute this basic statement? If you do
>how can you deny that a druid and shaman are a hybrid.
>
>>