Posted by LoGB on August 9, 2000 at 19:42:27:
In Reply to: My Question regarding Shamans (text) posted by Death_Claw on August 9, 2000 at 14:52:53:
Sure, You can rationalize most anything, healer in masters*coughnep* shaman/paladin/assassin/conji in sylvan, elf necromancer, ranger empire, ranger/druid arby, shaman/priest rager...etc...ad nauseum. Not saying that those rationalizations would not make a fine addition to the rp of the mud. And each one can be valid. Why wont it happen (please, no immortal comsiracies please, we are all sick of them) accept in a VERY VERY VERY VERY few circumstances? Game balance. Period. It might be cool. It might make sense. But dude...can you think what a shaman, who has bash protection, can dodge spells, can resist damage, as well as protection, as well as sanc, as well as heal, as well as demonfire? It would be sick. And you would have people leaving cf because of the hundreds of nay-sayers who would scream "IMM's CHAR, IMM's CHAR". Then you would have imms sick of all the hatred flowing at them, righteously or not, and you would have more of them burn out. Me? I would rather have them do their jobs that they are doing well, and continue to play a great free game, than see some prick go out of his way to pick a combo like shaman/rager...nomatter how phenomenal his rp, nomatter how awesome everyone thinks he is, nomatter how much "Sense" that it should be allowed. LoGB...
Back from vacation.