Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bryk" data-source="post: 6351406" data-attributes="member: 6776803">I think they are doing what they hoped I would do.  Is going away from a healer being required.  It still helps to have some healing over no healing.  Sure you might think if the cleric can't keep someone up against tough creatures.  I believe this is intended.As a DM who has run 2 campaigns with D&D Next material, I simply could not take down a party with a Mountain Dwarf Life Cleric.  It was just absurd.  He had 23 AC (thank goodness Dwarves no longer get +1 to AC), and totaled 23 AC with 2 magic items which gave +1 (magic shield and magic armor).  That with his healing, he could completely fill both the tank and healer role. IT HAD to get toned down.In my homebrew campaign I am making enchantments for items (for a hefty price tag) that will be able to put on weapons/holy symbols that will increase healing a bit but not too much.I rather have a system where DMs have to homebrew making something stronger (if they want the players to have to rely on healing), than a system where I have the wack the heck out of a class so that no one will want to play it.  As it is now, I can understand players not wanting to play a boring life cleric if they can't keep their entire party alive very easily, but if everyone else has a difficult time doing their job in even a boss fight except for the healer, then clearly something is wrong.</blockquote>