Zark |
Zark wrote:No problem.
@DrDeth:I reread my post and it came of snarky. It was unnecessary and uncalled for. My apology.
@ OP: I would like to point out that I still think that is necessary and useful to have at least one character in a party that can heal. I just don't think it has to be a dedicated healer.
I also must pointy out that any kind of character can hamper a party. A badly played and/or designed fighter or wizard or druid or whatever can hamper a party.
Good :-)
Sure, a dedicated healer isn'y necessary and is boring. But a cleric who can buff, then blast, then heal- that's super useful.
Agree, especially if they can do a bit of melee or archery as well.
Jodokai |
Should you have someone that can heal? Yes.
Should you have someone that can ONLY heal? No.
Exactly this. You WILL need to heal in combat or suffer a TPK. Maybe not often and it shouldn't be every fight, but when your Wizard gets his INT reduced to 1 through a curse, I don't care how many times you wack him with a CLW wand, he ain't getting better.
Adamantine Dragon |
TriOmegaZero wrote:Exactly this. You WILL need to heal in combat or suffer a TPK. Maybe not often and it shouldn't be every fight, but when your Wizard gets his INT reduced to 1 through a curse, I don't care how many times you wack him with a CLW wand, he ain't getting better.Should you have someone that can heal? Yes.
Should you have someone that can ONLY heal? No.
While I agree with the sentiment expressed here, scrolls, wands and magic items can go a long way to dealing with situations like this.
In the fairly frequent situations where a party in my play group lacks a "healer" we do have a list of "healing items" that we do our best to pull together, and that list includes things like "scroll of restoration" or "scroll of heal" and of course the ever-popular "wand of cure light wounds".