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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6461061" data-attributes="member: 12731">No, this is the actual question I am asking!Except for one thing: Since this would be an optional rule for groups who don't want to play healers, there is absolutely no requirement that a healer must remain as useful and fun as in a standard game.Quite the opposite, in fact. The entire premise is that what makes healers "fun and useful" is that they're obligatory, and it is specifically this I want to get rid of. So:1) If you find it fun to play a healer, play a standard game where they are useful to the point of being mandatory. The "mandatoriness" isn't a problem if you already want to play one, after all. Please feel free to not post this, however.2) If you already view healers as non-essential, then you don't have the problem I have. Simply play with or without one, according to your preferences. Again, your post isn't required. Thank you.3) If you do feel a healer is required, but don't see this as a problem, good for you. Nothing to see here... and thank you for not telling me this.but 4) If you agree the healing power of a character shouldering the healer role is a must, and you're interested in exploring ways to tweak the game so a healer isn't needed in order to provide this healing, then I'm interested in hearing your thoughts! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />That is, the actual healing needs to remain available to the characters. But no single character should feel compelled to take more than his or her share of "healing actions".</blockquote>

Verification