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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="VinylTap" data-source="post: 6041860" data-attributes="member: 6697217">I'm not arguing with any of your points, but what I'm worried about is the farther you go down this path, the more you build the 'healer' into a necessary part of  the system. I realize there are people out there who like to heal-- but i don't think its enough to support every gaming group out there. I think you can build a fun healing system into the game-- but you have to be careful about it. All I'm saying is there should be options. The game should be playable with any group (within reason, but i think no cleric is well within reason), because the likely hood of no one wanting to play a healer is substantial enough to come up often.There's pro-active healing and active healing, there should be enough options for either style to work spread across an average array of PC's. Proactive healing might slow down combat a bit, as people take a turn or two lay down debuffs and buffs, but its a far better solution than binding your system to an active healing mechanic, imo. You should avoid, at all costs, situations where players are forced to fill rolls they have no interest in filling. I enjoy gritty play, I like the idea of the group hitting the BBEG with <50 health. It makes them terrified. My ideal system makes players manage their resources over several encounters so that they strive to have as many of them left for the big tough fight at the end. If you can top everyone off to max just before the last encounter you suck a lot of the tension out of it. Obviously this is personal preference in the system, but I can't see why arguing for less options makes a better system.</blockquote>

Verification