Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 3949489" data-attributes="member: 40961">1: Someone who &quot;doesn't do defense&quot; isn't forbidden from being a &quot;defender.&quot;&nbsp; Its a game design term.&nbsp; If your character wades into the middle of the battle and chops everyone within reach into little pieces, while grabbing those who flee screaming by the ankles and dragging them back into the fray for more chopping, he's a defender.&nbsp; But in his mind, he's probably not &quot;doing defense.&quot;&nbsp; He's attacking.2: If what the &quot;nature shaman&quot; is supposed to be accomplishing mimics the cleric, then I hope that WOTC has the guts to just release an ability tree or something for the cleric, and tell off everyone who objects because they don't like the name &quot;cleric&quot; on their character sheet.&nbsp; I only want a separate nature shaman if it actually does something different from what we already have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 3949489, member: 40961"] 1: Someone who "doesn't do defense" isn't forbidden from being a "defender." Its a game design term. If your character wades into the middle of the battle and chops everyone within reach into little pieces, while grabbing those who flee screaming by the ankles and dragging them back into the fray for more chopping, he's a defender. But in his mind, he's probably not "doing defense." He's attacking. 2: If what the "nature shaman" is supposed to be accomplishing mimics the cleric, then I hope that WOTC has the guts to just release an ability tree or something for the cleric, and tell off everyone who objects because they don't like the name "cleric" on their character sheet. I only want a separate nature shaman if it actually [I]does something different[/I] from what we already have. [/QUOTE]

Verification