Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 6726372" data-attributes="member: 1165">I've only played with a few groups of players. They've almost always fought together as a team. Often they cannot work together outside of combat. (I don't allow that in any game I'm DMing.) We play more 4e than anything else, and healing isn't really a huge issue. (Healing is a minor action that takes the healee's resources, so it's not like the leader doesn't want to heal.)Of course, it's not just the rules, but the player too. We played what ended up as a one-shot using Book of Nine Swords. We had a PC who could use 3e's version of Healing Strike (hit someone, heal as a "no" action) and the player with that ability outright refused to use it. Naturally we didn't know about this until play started. That player was perfectly fine as a shaman in 4e, using more actions (minor actions only, though) to heal PCs while still controlling the battlefield.But I have to wonder... A friend of mine plays a lot of indie games, and her players would be, in D&D terms, incompetent. They always split up, give tasks to unsuited PCs, and so forth. Her stories sound hilarious, but I doubt I'd have much fun playing in one.</blockquote>