I don't have any insights into the relative pillar-focus of different sub-classes to share, no - other than to note that the game has always seemed decidedly combat-focused.You ask something you are not willing to do yourself.
I don't have any insights into the relative pillar-focus of different sub-classes to share, no - other than to note that the game has always seemed decidedly combat-focused.
If you do, feel free. Or not. I'm not looking to compete or lay a trap for you.
Was your rudeness here necessary?Cute, but that's not meaning, it's etymology.
Shape-changing was a power attributed to basically everyone who did magic: shamans, wizards, bards, necromancers, deities, magical creatures, etc.Shape-changing was a power attributed to the Druids of myth & legend. Though D&D diverged in other ways and over-emphasizes reverence for nature rather than for pagan tribal deities, some associated with nature, "shape-changing nature priest" isn't far off.
I've been playing the game since 1980, I ran Next through the playtest, and 5e since it came out. I don't know what you think you're accomplishing with your childish posturing, but you've lost my respect, and my attention.Get educated on 5E and play the game
The level of 'rudeness' in question was entirely necessary, yes.Was your rudeness here necessary?
To varying degrees, at one time or another, sure. So was divination. So were a lot of things. Divination and Shapechanging, though were things Druids of myth were particularly known for. By D&D standards, half right isn't bad.Shape-changing was a power attributed to basically everyone who did magic: shamans, wizards, bards, necromancers, deities, magical creatures, etc.
Was your rudeness here necessary?
The level of 'rudeness' in question was entirely necessary, yes.
).

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.