>I feel, reading this, like you somehow feel like there's a
>problem with empowerment because you couldn't find your Imm.
>The problem in this case was that you could find your
>Imm, they just weren't impressed.

My issue with empowerment is really just the requirement - I could understand the necessity if the classes were generally more powerful (example of limited minotaurs or sanctuary pre-ABS or pre-evil healing nerf) or if there was something warranting the need (like tattoes, special powers based on the Immortal, etc).....but a basic requirement to get any skills/spells above 10 levels just isn't my idea of a good fit. Lichdom is something I consider requiring immortal involvement - not getting level 11 abilities. I've been watching a lowbie duergar shaman on everyday whose probably still waiting on empowerment and I just feel bad for the guy.

I don't think it's coincidence that out of 16 classes, all empowerment classes are in the bottom six - and I think necromancers/orcs are only down there because most don't make the graveyard (using http://cf.mudbytes.net/).

Maybe just the reverse - let people get their skills/supps automatically but any Immortal, especially of their sphere, has the ability to strip them if they're doing something unfitting for their role/class/etc. It'd make the classes a whole lot more excessible and definitely a bit more newbie friendly (try explaining to someone new why a healer is too hard for new people)...and the game would be a lot more fun with more healers around.

But usually this argument of changing empowerment is lost, so doubt it'll change.