Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8741146" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Should be? Artificer, unquestionably. It already exists as part of the game, that would just be a formality.I, personally, also count Warlord in that space. It may be a decade late, but finally giving even that one small olive branch to 4e fans would do a lot of good. It would help mend the one major schism in the (old) fanbase that was intentionally ignored or even widened by the original developers.This will never actually work for implementing a Warlord, and would be a slap in the face for Warlord fans.Besides, even Mike Mearls, the guy who literally cracked jokes about &quot;shouting hands back on&quot; as a reason to not include a Warlord class, explicitly said that martial healing was fine as far as the devs were concerned, and that if DMs did not like that, they were free to not let players play that in their games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8741146, member: 6790260"] [I]Should[/I] be? Artificer, unquestionably. It already exists as part of the game, that would just be a formality. I, personally, also count Warlord in that space. It may be a decade late, but finally giving even that one small olive branch to 4e fans would do a lot of good. It would help mend the one major schism in the (old) fanbase that was intentionally ignored or even widened by the original developers. This will never actually work for implementing a Warlord, and would be a slap in the face for Warlord fans. Besides, [I]even Mike Mearls[/I], the guy who literally cracked jokes about "shouting hands back on" [I]as a reason to not include a Warlord class[/I], explicitly said that martial healing was fine as far as the devs were concerned, and that if DMs did not like that, they were free to not let players play that in their games. [/QUOTE]

Verification