Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6501071" data-attributes="member: 92511">I'm afraid I must confess I am confused by the premise/assertion that the cleric's place as a "core four" class is somehow forfeit because there are druids and bards and paladins.One just as easily can say Fighter's are no longer core 4. If you want a frontline damage dealer/guy who relies on weapons, you have a barbarian, ranger, paladin...to a secondary extent bards, monks, and assassins.Thief is no longer "core 4" because anyone can learn to be stealthy or deal with traps. Previously, assassins, thief-acrobats, and bards could all deal with traps. All of them and monks could be stealthy. This edition you also get the arcane trickster. I recall something about the 1e Barbarian (or maybe it was Rangers?) detecting pits and snare traps, at least. That's partial help/coverage.Wizards, obviously, are as superfluous as clerics since we have sorcerers warlocks, arcane tricksters and eldritch knights can all lay down the spell hurt.TL<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />R "Because there are other classes/archetypes that can" is not a reason any of the core four -if you accept the existence of such, as my original post asserts- are obsolete.</blockquote>