Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9611049" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Except it does when those other classes depend upon that magic. Healing requires spells or other magical aid. I would know. I was the party healer in an otherwise non-magic party. We were guzzling healing potions like it was no tomorrow, and I was using half my (Warlock) spells on cure wounds on top of my Celestial healing feature--and we almost never got through a full adventuring day with more than half the tank left.Making that costly? Yeah, that's never going to have any consequences whatsoever for the people in desperate need of that help. To say nothing of the zillion problems that so frequently specifically do require a spellcaster to solve (something that is essentially unheard of in the other direction, problems that cannot be solved by a spellcaster and absolutely require a non-spellcaster to solve.)You don't see how there couldn't be a problem with someone saying: &quot;I'm going to double or triple or quadruple (etc.) the amount of benefit I get, while halving or quartering (etc.) the risk/cost I'll face&quot;? You don't see how that could, y'know, radically inflate the power and influence of one class or set of classes, while leaving the others in the dust?You really don't see how giving one side both &quot;you can break the rules, but you'll pay a price&quot; AND &quot;except you can decide to pay less price, if you want&quot; could maybe, possibly, produce some issues?The designers--repeatedly--say otherwise. Even PF1e's designers have admitted it. Even 3PP stuff, like Drop Dead Studios, admits that it's a problem and provides a solution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9611049, member: 6790260"] Except it does when those other classes [I]depend upon[/I] that magic. Healing requires spells or other magical aid. I would know. I [I]was[/I] the party healer in an otherwise non-magic party. We were guzzling healing potions like it was no tomorrow, [I]and[/I] I was using half my (Warlock) spells on [I]cure wounds[/I] on top of my Celestial healing feature--and we almost [I]never[/I] got through a full adventuring day with more than half the tank left. Making that costly? Yeah, that's never going to have any consequences whatsoever for the people in desperate need of that help. To say nothing of the zillion problems that so frequently [I]specifically do[/I] require a spellcaster to solve (something that is essentially unheard of in the other direction, problems that [I]cannot[/I] be solved by a spellcaster and absolutely require a non-spellcaster to solve.) You don't see how there couldn't be a problem with someone saying: "I'm going to double or triple or quadruple (etc.) the amount of benefit I get, while halving or quartering (etc.) the risk/cost I'll face"? You don't see how that could, y'know, [I]radically[/I] inflate the power and influence of one class or set of classes, while leaving the others in the dust? You [I]really[/I] don't see how giving one side both "you can break the rules, but you'll pay a price" AND "except you can decide to pay [I]less[/I] price, if you want" could maybe, [I]possibly[/I], produce some issues? The designers--repeatedly--say otherwise. Even PF1e's designers have admitted it. Even 3PP stuff, like Drop Dead Studios, admits that it's a problem [I]and provides a solution[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification