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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Joe Liker" data-source="post: 6461164" data-attributes="member: 6777505">If, as a healer, someone can't have any fun unless their role is mandatory (meaning the other players cannot have fun without them), they are probably kind of a passive-aggressive jerk, and I don't care about making the game fun for them.I've been in plenty of parties that got by without a wizard or a rogue, but that doesn't make those classes underpowered or useless. It doesn't even mean we wouldn't have been glad to have a character of the missing class join the group. On the contrary, we would have welcomed them because they would have made adventuring easier or safer in some way. Why is it so important to some people that the healing role be on a pedestal? As it stands, 5e does a great job of supplying characters with enough self-healing options that they can get by without a dedicated healer. That doesn't mean the healer is useless.A party with a healer can do some things that would be much harder without one.A party with a rogue or ranger can do some things that would be much harder without one.A party with a nonhealing bard, cleric, or druid can do some things that would be much harder without one.A party with a sorcerer, warlock or wizard can do some things that would be much harder without one.A party with a barbarian, fighter, or paladin can do some things that would be much harder without one.No party is going to have every one of these bases covered in full, yet they somehow find a way to get by. That's part of the beauty of the game. If you enjoy filling a certain role, just do your damn job and enjoy it. It's not that complicated. If what you actually enjoy is lording your abilities over the other players and delighting in their inability to function without you, I'm frankly glad 5e is not fun for you.</blockquote>

Verification