Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4178307" data-attributes="member: 32164">Not that iconic? Not that ICONIC?! Not THAT ICONIC?!?!?It's the ranger for gods sakes!! Archer. Woodsman. Tracker. Robin Hood. Hereward. Orion. Aragorn and Legolas.It would be better to totally dump the crappy "only in D&D!" cleric before I'll let you pry my ranger from my cold dead hands!WotC has never said they were placing options for every role. They said they were fixing the problem of requiring a cleric. And if you don't think clerics are "required," play Midnight without a character with the "healer" path, and then talk to me about how "unnecessary" clerics are in 3e. Whatever you think, without massive houseruling, a nice DM, or lots of magical equipment, a party without a cleric in 3e is just plain screwed. In 4e, a party without any particular class will face different challenges, not insurmountable ones.To my mind, it would have been a good fix to merge the wizard with the cleric, so that the "not it!" class (cleric) and the "I call shotgun!" class (wizard) are the same character. That would probably balance fine and, combined with the changes in healing, would hardly be overpowered.*sigh* Maybe in 5e.Or maybe, just maybe, clerics will annoy me less now.And...can we stop talking about the Warlord's name? It's done. The class is called Warlord. Deal with it.</blockquote>