Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KesselZero" data-source="post: 5926760" data-attributes="member: 6689976">Here's an outrageous question: what's so wrong about requiring a cleric? I'm kind of just playing devil's advocate here, but go with me. The elephant in the room in all of this is that WotC's (and most players') baseline assumption is that nobody enjoys being a healer and we should go to any lengths to either let healers do tons of other stuff in addition (a la 4e) or make them unnecessary altogether. I think this is a bit dismissive of many players; see for example the popularity of the Pacifist Healer in 4e, which is so much a "healbot" that it isn't allowed to damage bloodied enemies. It also assumes a certain playstyle or set of priorities among players; I know people who enjoy playing healers. (I won't claim they equal the people who like killing things, but that's for society to unpack, not me.) If we go too far in that direction, it means that there's basically no reason to ever have a healer. Why waste a character on healing when you could have another high-damage dealer who'll get all his HP back overnight anyway? While no player should be forced to play something they don't want to, having a cleric in your party should be a huge advantage over not having one. If you've got a companion with a direct line to the ear of his god, who can close up wounds with a mere touch, you should be way better off in the dungeon than a party who relies on dirty old bandages and some antibacterial moss they found. In addition, party makeup is part of the resource challenge of the game-- should we get a healer or up our damage output? Will one Cure Light Wounds be enough or do we need to stock up on potions because our cleric worships Moradin and is good at kicking butts instead of patching them up? Okay, apologies for the rantiness of that. Like I said, I see both sides of the argument and am personally torn, but just wanted to put out there a facet of the argument that doesn't seem to be getting discussed. But it does bother me when WotC talks about eliminating the necessity of a healer from the party. It's true that when you have a cleric, you basically only need to rest two nights to heal fully, enough time for the cleric to burn all his heal spells then get them back. And thinking about that fact has made me more amenable to just saying "May as well save the extra day and give full HP back anyway." But on the other hand, having a healer should give you a big advantage in how fast you can get back to the dungeon. With instant overnight healing, having a healer only gives you a small advantage. TL;DR: While a party should be able to survive without a healer, since nobody should be forced to play a class they don't enjoy, having a healer should give the party a big advantage. Instant overnight healing changes that to only a small advantage.</blockquote>

Verification