Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 5727784" data-attributes="member: 360">Read down the thread where you're arguing against delricho's proposed Artifice power source, as a power source that exists for pretty much one class. That's a big part of what I think of primal. The primal classes in 4e are barbarian (should be martial by their pre-4e powers), essentials rangers (only half-primal and traditionally non-martial features are mostly ignored), warden (aka melee druid), shaman (aka healer druid), and druid. So it's basically a power source for druids. And that's not enough for a class that was casting mostly cleric spells in every prior edition of D&amp;D. &nbsp;Yes, it makes Dark Sun and some other worlds work more nicely if you can ban divine outright. But I think it makes the game work better if you can use a class that existed prior to 4e as the divine controller, and I don't think there are any solid, non-divine classes I'd want druids sharing powers with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="drothgery, post: 5727784, member: 360"] Read down the thread where you're arguing against delricho's proposed Artifice power source, as a power source that exists for pretty much one class. That's a big part of what I think of primal. The primal classes in 4e are barbarian (should be martial by their pre-4e powers), essentials rangers (only half-primal and traditionally non-martial features are mostly ignored), warden (aka melee druid), shaman (aka healer druid), and druid. So it's basically a power source for druids. And that's not enough for a class that was casting mostly cleric spells in every prior edition of D&D. Yes, it makes Dark Sun and some other worlds work more nicely if you can ban divine outright. But I think it makes the game work better if you can use a class that existed prior to 4e as the divine controller, and I don't think there are any solid, non-divine classes I'd want druids sharing powers with. [/QUOTE]

Verification