Party Strategy Guide

[bkelly1984]

If you tell people that they are "secondary healer" or "secondary tank" I think some people would take that as licence to be a lot less effective than a well-played hybrid. Maybe I've just met a lot of tactically naive players. But in any event my concern is that if you tell a hybrid to do one task and not the others you relegate them to simply being a bad specialist if the person takes you too literally. If all your Druid is going to do during your run is tank in bear-form, why not get a second Warrior instead?

Thanks Brista, that makes more sense although I don't think building less specific roles will solve the problem. If a tactically naive player is a bad specialist, I doubt that same person would handle a hybrid role better. I would rather a threat-ignorant Druid stay in bear form so his mistakes matter less.

I'm still inclined to keep the roles very specific so people know exactly what's expected of them so they don't duplicate tasks or step on each other's toes. If a party leader believes it best, he or she can leave some roles unassigned.

Still, I think within any definition of the term "healer", hunters don't really count. We can't heal player tanks. It is a useful string to our bow though. In groups where we have one main healer and no secondary healer the hunter can help the group through tough fights by drawing some of the aggro onto the pet and healing the pet, effectively acting as an extra healer without gaining the ability to heal the tank. In other words if you're not going to get through the fight with just one healer, the hunter's ability to do this should not be dismissed

Gotcha. I do agree that hunters can be very effective group members and don't get enough respect. I'll file this away in case I write an "And Now For Something Completely Different" section.

Thanks again for all the feedback,

Brian