Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tyrlaan" data-source="post: 6658446" data-attributes="member: 20998">I like how you both rationalize the other side of your arguments as attributed to laziness. I'd argue what's most lazy is dismissing each other's arguments like that, but I think you've both demonstrated how firmly entrenched your opinions are at this point. Keep the rest of us out of your crossfire please.I understand what you have said here, but I don't understand how that's the feeling you drew from it. I mean, if you spent your minor action to heal, then you healed. How did it not feel like your character being the one that did it? I can track how you might have felt it to be too easy to heal - like the paint brush vs. a camera - but not the one doing it I can't really follow. I believe it very much specifically was built with people who disliked playing the healer in mind. Well, more specifically playing a healbot. I remember WotC staff precisely explaining that healers would not be hamstrung with spending their actions only healing. So if you wanted to spend all your turns healing, yeah, I can understand possibly being underwhelmed by the 4e offerings. It wasn't their design goal. I do think the eventually provided better avenues for playing a healbot, but I do agree with you prior assessment that the core rulebook didn't give that option. That said, if they designed a game that didn't need healing at all, there would be no place for a healer. Playing a healer when no one needs healing would kind of be like showing up to an American football game in a baseball uniform and carrying a catcher's mitt. Maybe I'm not following your proposition here, because designing for no healing needed plus a full action-spending healer doesn't sound &quot;tough to balance&quot;, it just sounds pointless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tyrlaan, post: 6658446, member: 20998"] I like how you both rationalize the other side of your arguments as attributed to laziness. I'd argue what's most lazy is dismissing each other's arguments like that, but I think you've both demonstrated how firmly entrenched your opinions are at this point. Keep the rest of us out of your crossfire please. I understand what you have said here, but I don't understand how that's the feeling you drew from it. I mean, if you spent your minor action to heal, then you healed. How did it not feel like your character being the one that did it? I can track how you might have felt it to be [i]too[/i] easy to heal - like the paint brush vs. a camera - but not the one doing it I can't really follow. I believe it very much specifically was built with people who disliked playing the healer in mind. Well, more specifically playing a healbot. I remember WotC staff precisely explaining that healers would not be hamstrung with spending their actions only healing. So if you wanted to spend all your turns healing, yeah, I can understand possibly being underwhelmed by the 4e offerings. It wasn't their design goal. I do think the eventually provided better avenues for playing a healbot, but I do agree with you prior assessment that the core rulebook didn't give that option. That said, if they designed a game that didn't need healing at all, there would be no place for a healer. Playing a healer when no one needs healing would kind of be like showing up to an American football game in a baseball uniform and carrying a catcher's mitt. Maybe I'm not following your proposition here, because designing for no healing needed plus a full action-spending healer doesn't sound "tough to balance", it just sounds pointless. [/QUOTE]

Verification