Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wraith-Hunter" data-source="post: 3324620" data-attributes="member: 48298">That is what I don't like  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> But like I said it is impotent raving. I doubt that D&D will ever make healing universal to all spell casting classes. And as it is one of the sacred cows I bet it will always be in the game. I would rather have them be interesting optional characters like a bard or monk rather than central to the game like they are now. In some groups I have been in nobody wanted to play one, and in some they were better warriors than the warriors, and better at nearly everything else. I don't mind the devout character but just hate the way 3e gives them lots of easter eggs so that people will play them.Some of the clerics I have seen played have been great. And like I said I'd love a Shepard Book type character.I also hate how clerics can cast in armor and arcane casters can't even with the some of the same spells. AFC needs to go and Healing needs to be opened up to all casters. I don't want to see a wizard running around in plate mail any more than the next guy, but with all the metamagic and other feats low str scores etc there are ways to minimize it. If it was gone there would certainly be some characters who would abuse it, but I don't think you would see every wizard running around in it. I just always thought it was dumb that clerics could cast in armor and wizards could not.</blockquote>

Verification