Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoonSong" data-source="post: 6460864" data-attributes="member: 6689464">I don't think it is that easy, how could you design a game where healer wasn't needed but still useful and fun as a healer, but no so much it turns mandatory and thus a no win for groups that want no healer, but still fun enough for the healer player and in a way that doesn't steal fun from the party? <this is a rhetoric question>One of the two options has to be baked to a certain extent or nobody really gets to have fun, without that choice adventure writing requires aiming for a narrow sweet spot, one that  is entirely subjective. Even if it was successful,  how long until such a narrow band becomes repetitive?. I believe the designers erred for ease of play and the path of less resistance (the four role party). This is a no-win situation for the designers, catering to two contradictory demands is impossible, they had to decide or compromise as much as it was needed or useful. But those choices aren't really design flaws, they had to choose or we'd have an unplayable mess. (And, no I'm not really happy with the setup, I feel the healer role is already diluted in 5e with overnight healing and self healing)</blockquote>