I don't think we have those here, but they sure do look yummy

Yup it is, and white chocolate cheesecake is heaven on a plate.

Watcha doin'?

Eatin' chocolate.

Where'd ya get it?

The doggie dropped it.

I just raided the dustbin under my desk. This is what I found:

I don't like white chocolate.
But anyway, better than nothing.

It doesn't matter if a spell is arcane or divine or if it has a somatic component or not.
Some of the Priest's powers are spells, which they cast. Which pretty much is the actual definition of an spellcaster.


Also, white chocolate it's the shit, at least by itself.

A more important question: Why do people label "dark chocolate" as such? Just call it chocolate, as it is. Leave the extra-labeling to those neanderthals who want "milk chocolate".

Since we're on the topic. Best chocolate: Taza brand. https://www.tazachocolate.com/

Used to love it, not a fan any more. It's just too sweet.

White chocolate is the best chocolate, way better than all that 'high cocoa %' stuff that we are seeing these days which just tastes bitter and forgets what we liked about chocolate in the first place.

Yeah, I meant Reese's. One should not take cold medicine and try to type a coherent reply on a discussion forum.

Dark Chocolate is the only true Chocolate! We should purge the memory of white chocolate as it was never a true chocolate.

In the D&D world clerics powers are granted by deity's (so in fact are Rangers). Have a look on Wikipedia for DnD Cleric it. The reason that came about is due to balance, if you say the main areas of skills are Offense (O), Defense (D), Utility (U),
then a pure fighter would cover O and D to a greater or lesser degree in each. A wizard would be focused on O, with no D, and some U, A Cleric has some O but not to fighter level, some D to at or around fighter, and some U. If the cleric had full O like a fighter/wizard and D like a fighter, and full U there would be no need for the other classes. (Note this is just a brief attempt at an example)


The other guys are talking about Warhammer which I am not so familiar with, so can't comment on that or how its setup/balanced.

Finally, I am sending the Milky Bar kid round to sort you out :o)
(I hope that trademark is international, if not youtube will have a clip of him).

I shall focus on D&D which seems to be where you (claim to) know the rules:

1) I don't need Wikipedia, because I have the actual manuals.

2) If they are not spellcasters, why in the hell does EVERY SINGLE D&D edition have a spell progression list for them? Because they are spellcasters.

Which is the main point. Spellcasting is not a role, it's an ability. A spellcaster casts spells. Let them be arcane or divine. Verbal or somatic. Offensive or defensive.
Wearing armor or not has little to do with the mechanic role's point. A wizard cannot wear armor because arcane spells have a somatic component, which is hindered by armor. That is why other systems have no problem with having armored wizards. What defines the role, it the actual spells you can cast.

Regarding roles and mechanics, even if its true that classes have main mechanical roles (i.e a rogue is a skillmonkey/DPS character; a fighter is a damage dealer and endurer, etc...), you can play your character in almost every way. For example, a wizard can cover every role:

Wizard with defensive role -> focus on abjuration
Wizard with offensive role -> focus on evocation
Wizard with contoller role -> focus on conjuration/transmutation

That is, what defines the "role" is the nature of the spell, its "school". And that is the reason why, even if a cleric is "defensive" (most of the spells' effects will focus on healing/buffing), you can spice it up with control spells from """necromancy""", for example.
Regarding the cleric,you can emphasise the combat aspect by becoming a warpriest when you meet the requirements. The game balances because you are less of a "pure" cleric, which is less of the traditional "defensive support" role.
Even if it won't the best in X, you can build a character who is decent at any reasonable role. (Note that it's just a drop in the ocean of character building, just a quick example)

It is true that the most simple of players will think as if it was WOW or a Diablo clone and will use the cleric for healing, the rogue for using a bow, the warrior for slashing and the mage for casting fireballs.
But, at least under my experience, the only edition with a tight limit in the roles is D&D 4, which nobody will take as a true roleplaying reference (nobody serious, anyway).

However Javihyuga, clerics and paladins make best fighters against undead. Healing spells hurt undead creatures. So Clerics are offensive to undeads. Mages can wear armor in Ad&d but spells may backfire or fail for somatics casting.