The cleric's signature ability is healing. Wizards get more magic, but they don't have such a signature. Not even magic missile, fireball, and other very popular spells rise to this.
You mention exceptions. Since when did the exception take the place of the rule?
What rule? You have yet to quote one.
Other people have quoted that Bards use arcane (and only arcane) spells. You argued about that.
http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140310
"A bard can easily take on the role that a cleric fulfills in a party"
I am not sure why giving players the option to not have a cleric would be harmful. Arcane cure wounds doesn't exactly impact gameplay just because it's arcane instead of divine in such a case.
The cleric's signature ability is healing. Wizards get more magic, but they don't have such a signature. Not even magic missile, fireball, and other very popular spells rise to this.
I referenced a common phrase, "the exception to the rule". No rules were referenced. Do you understand what I meant now?
If I argued about whether bards use arcane (and only arcane) spells, as you say, there must have been a good reason, don't you think?
Ah, very good! I am convinced now they did not intend for healing magic to always be divine magic.
Mike Mearls was wrong to let the bard easily take on the role that a cleric fulfills in a party.
Have you read the rest of the thread?I'm convinced you are teasing us now