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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mouseferatu" data-source="post: 6453504" data-attributes="member: 1288">I've gotta go with the Capn on this one. I really don't think the lack of other "basic four" abilities compares to the lack of healing, in terms of impact on the campaign.If you lack a rogue, you can have other people with the right skills; you can open locks and detect traps with magic. If you lack a frontline fighter, well, the cleric and the rogue won't be as efficient, but they can fill in in a pinch. If you lack an arcanist, there's be a lot of fights and situations that are much harder, but still quite doable. (My current 5E group is a druid, a fighter, a paladin, and a cleric. They could really have used a mage a time or two, but it was never the difference between success and failure.)But a healer? That's not something you can "fudge" with any degree of helpfulness. Lack any of the other classes, certain situations get tougher; but lack a healer, and the entire game can grind to a near halt as people drop every other combat, and as the party decides to retreat and wait for the next day after every two or three encounters.Hit dice along are a fair minimum for a gritty campaign, but for anything heroic? There really does need to be a middle ground between "just HD" and "must have healbot."Now, I happen to feel the game does give a sufficiency of options. Go for the quick healing/recover options, and/or include a "secondary healer" (like a paladin) plus lots of potions or wands. But however it's handled, I firmly believe the game should still be playable--and still fun, even if it's a bit harder in some respects--without requiring a party to have any particular niche filled.</blockquote>

Verification