Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="drothgery" data-source="post: 6103020" data-attributes="member: 360">I think it's wrapped up in a lot of different things (I voted that they should heal, and I'll be upset if they can't).1) How important are healers in 5e? If having a class with major healing abilities is extremely important (despite the existence of formal roles, the only edition of D&D where you can make a decent argument this isn't the case is 4e), then I think it's very important for there to be more than one viable option out of the box, and fighting the 'mundanes can't have nice things' argument means at least one of those options should not be a caster.2) If you have a mundane healer at all, how important is it that said character be a warlord? It's possible you would not want a mundane healer class to be a melee combatant (yeah, I know archer builds for warlords were added later).3) How important is it to have reasonable equivalents for 4e PH1 characters? I'd argue a warlord that cannot heal is not a reasonable replacement for most warlords (except possibly lazy warlords used to emulate something otherwise hard to do in 4e).</blockquote>