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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6088545" data-attributes="member: 2067">I'm of the opinion that part of being an adult is to have the capacity to let other people have fun in their own way. I'm not so sure we'd get much of an ardent chorus against the inspirational healing, if it was something you could swap in or swap out as you desired.With the way 5e is structured, I'm pretty sure anything above "basic" is going to be explicitly optional, anyway. If you WANT to add in a warlord with inspirational healing, you can, but if you don't want that, no one will make you. Same thing with paladins (for people who don't like the Code) and barbarians  (for people who say "it's a society, not a class!") and monks (for those who don't like Asia in their fantasy make-believe!). The game won't assume their use, but it will certainly allow for it. DMs, I think, need to be active managers of their game, and so doing things like presenting a list of available classes is going to be par for the course. The only problem would be, I think, if WotC automatically tethered "Inspirational leader-type character" necessarily to shout-healing and martial mind control. As long as these things are recognized as not necessary for the archetype, just as Vancian spellcasting is being recognized as not necessary for the Wizard archeytpe, I don't see any reason why someone who doesn't like those things can't enjoy the game without them, while someone who loves those things can include them in their own games. And I think that not everybody is as extremist as all that. I'm not particularly a fan of inspirational healing, personally, but I play 4e on a regular basis, and have even played a Warlord or two in my time (though, I gotta say, I much prefer the Skald's Aura as the X Word mechanic, though it has some problems), and with more than one in the party, too. It's possible to let someone else have their fun twice a combat or so, and not get too worked up about it. <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=":)" /> So having it as a dial that you can switch, as a DM or as a player, isn't a bad place for it.I've been following a different thread, but I saw this, and, with the caveat that some people really like to play dedicated healers, I'm going to agree, and even expand the argument: none of 4e's roles should be anything that anyone "has to play." Rather, each class should ultimately be capable of doing all of that and then some, even changing on a round-to-round basis. The roles were a (moderately successful) attempt to avoid Accidental Suck, but a better way to do that is just to make sure NONE of the "roles" are required.</blockquote>

Verification