Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6825539" data-attributes="member: 37579">Okay, let's hear your argument. Completely agree. And disagree. That's your opinion. Now, generally, it's better to do damage than not. For the same reason it's better to do damage than heal. But tanking/crowd control can help as well by preventing damage. A sword and board fighter specced to tank is not going to deal great damage, even with three attacks. Knocking the enemy prone for the rogue or to keep him off the wizard or light cleric is a better move. Arguably, the same comment could be made about Actions in general. In fact, since Action Surge just gives you another Action, we are talking about Actions. Are Actions principally offensive? And if yes, that means any class using an offensive mechanic for support is wasteful and inefficient. Agreed, but it was still not in the rules for a year. And we're talking about playing "by the rules" not "by the houserules" or 3PP content allowing warlord type content would apply.Similar houserules also existed for 3e and you could patch healing in 1e-2e to reduce the healer need.  Again, can you do that with *just* the PHB and a tiny splatbook?</blockquote>