Still, you have the 'holy trinity'. Tanks tank, healers heal and dps does damage.
In MMO video games, yes, but not in D&D - that is absolutely not how the D&D game is designed to work. :)
I think you have just explained what the problem is though - one of a difference in perception between those playing on how the game should work.
Each class has a different mechanism for surviving in a fight and a different play style - in some cases armour and higher hit point totals. Wizards & Clerics have spells that allow them to kill or disable opponents prior to taking damage. Rogues/Monks etc are more mobile and use that to avoid getting hit so much.
In MMO video games, yes, but not in D&D - that is absolutely not how the D&D game is designed to work. :)
I think that is an unfair treatment, albeit of an also unfair generalization.
The whole basis for the roles that ended up hard-coded into video games of the appropriate sort comes from the way that the D&D game presented the different classes back in the day.
D&D fighting men could use all sorts of weapons, wear the best armor to be found, and could survive a bit more punishment than other classes (barring 'I picked the right spells' moments). That translated into video game RPGs as warrior-type characters having better hit points and defense and often better basic damage output, and evolved into the 'tank' role of MMORPGs when those came along. But in all cases, the fact is that there is a type of character that is better than other types of characters at being on the front-lines of a battle with the encountered enemies, but was worth those enemies not simply ignoring. Of course, full fairness means pointing out that the "dps" role as a stand-alone didn't really work in the old-school table-top games - the "dps" class was the same one as the "tank" class, because other classes had noteworthy limitations to their overall damage-dealing capability like thieves' backstab really only working as a fight-opener (even though the multiplied damage might also end that one opponent) and spell casters having limited spells that had to be carefully selected in advance and were likely to run into complications in their usage because of rules of the era being things like taking any damage during the round you are casting a spell means losing the spell.
The "healer" role found in MMOs comes from the fact that the D&D game (and many others that followed in its footsteps) treat healing as a special feature of the few classes that have it. That translated to video games to things like Final Fantasy's white mage, and evolved into MMORPG territory as classes whose primary function - their special feature - was to heal other characters.
And since inspiration is a cyclical thing, the versions of D&D throughout the years have been inspired by the things which took inspiration from the earlier versions of D&D, and the concepts of tanks, healers, and damage dealers have not just persisted in their original incidental/functional forms but have become an intentional part of the design of classes along the lines of those that deal the biggest damage being intended to have defensive weakness that can be shored up (either by choosing to focus less on dealing damage, or by another character), those that have access to healing not having as potent of offensive options and otherwise having weakness to shore up (either by choosing to focus less on healing, or by another character), and those that have the best survivability also not really having a whole lot else going for them except dealing enough damage to keep monsters (by way of DMs) finding it reasonable to attack them more than the other less-survival-ready characters that are nearby.
Totally fair comments on the history of how we got to where we are now and you're right that D&D has definitely played that way in the past.
Much of it comes down to opinion and perspective I guess, as well as echo chambers - the people you play tabletop games with.
I'm not saying that there is a wrong and a right style to play D&D - that is a fools argument! If assigning roles to each class is something that is useful to a group, then that's cool.
For me, the right way to play D&D is just for everyone involved to have fun. :)
That said, I stand by my statement that 5th edition D&D isn't designed for each class to be assigned into tank, dps or healer roles.
Totally fair comments on the history of how we got to where we are now and you're right that D&D has definitely played that way in the past.
Much of it comes down to opinion and perspective I guess, as well as echo chambers - the people you play tabletop games with.
I'm not saying that there is a wrong and a right style to play D&D - that is a fools argument! If assigning roles to each class is something that is useful to a group, then that's cool.
For me, the right way to play D&D is just for everyone involved to have fun. :)
That said, I stand by my statement that 5th edition D&D isn't designed for each class to be assigned into tank, dps or healer roles.
I realized after posting that one of my points was made, but I forgot to actually weigh-in on the other point at hand.
Because I do agree with you that the intended way of playing D&D is for everyone involved to have fun, in whatever way it is that they do that, and that 5th edition isn't built requiring or expecting each character to be cast into a singular role. That's a thing that works well in video games because the coding can do things that a DM could do, but isn't necessarily all that likely to do, such as force monsters to attack the character that is set up to shrug off attacks even while another character is the biggest threat to the monster's survival because of the huge amounts of damage it keeps inflicting.
The roles are there in the game, but the differences between each are kept relatively small compared to MMO design principles - maybe a difference of up to 20% here or there depending on builds, rather than the MMO-style wherein the "dps" might do 2-5 times as much damage as others, the "tank" can take 2-5 times as much damage as others, and the typical combat is such a life-or-death endeavor that surviving without someone dedicated to be "healer" constantly restoring the others is an act of defiance against the design of the game.
Don't get me wrong, obviously you can take a Fighter and make them a tank or DPS, or a bit of both; you cannot make a Healer out of the class though (self-healing notwithstanding). Same with Barbarians, Monks and other classes. Each excess at certain roles - some are capable of doing all 3. Although if you tried to make a Paladin a tank, a healer AND a dps...that might take some work. Some classes can flip-flop, based on spell selection that day; particularly Druids/Clerics.
Now when I talk about my party, its the roles the player chose for their characters. Our Sorcerer can only be DPS, he doesn't have the AC to even think of tanking...nor the defensive spells for much crowd control. Although, he can be difficult to nail down for enemies to actually take a swing at him. The Cleric is a Cleric of War, so has some offensive capabilities and even surprised our DM with a Banishment spell that completely changed the fight. I (and the other Rogue) do DPS, can't heal much if at all and can take a bit of damage with Uncanny Dodge/Evasion helping out.
I'm only aware of 2 Feats that could help someone with that, Healer and Magic Initiate....but I'm just looking at the PHB.
It really doesn't take anything more than the healer feat.
I had a player that was concerned about how much healing the party would need because he was playing a cleric, but not taking the life domain, so he took the healer feat. The result was that he almost never felt the need to spend any spell slots on healing (as the healer feat and hit dice were enough to keep the party feeling good to go) - which means he easily could have played a fighter with the same feat, instead of a cleric, and the healing aspect of the game would have turned out pretty much the same.
As a DM I always tell my players D&D Isn't Skyrim, D&D Isn't fair. Everyone will not be able to use the same kinds of armor, and weapons. If you have a bucket load of HP, and can do an insane amount of damage in one round you don't need anything else. The mage or rogue who has under half your health and 1/3rd the AC is going to need that stuff way more then you will.
As a DM I always tell my players D&D Isn't Skyrim, D&D Isn't fair. Everyone will not be able to use the same kinds of armor, and weapons. If you have a bucket load of HP, and can do an insane amount of damage in one round you don't need anything else. The mage or rogue who has under half your health and 1/3rd the AC is going to need that stuff way more then you will.
If you are going for the "life isn't fair" mantra, then you should be randomly handing out the magic items, not selecting it for what you believe is best for the party.
It all depends on the type of game you want to run though, and the type of game your players want to participate in.
In earlier editions of D&D the chances of finding a magical longsword or mace in a published adventure was much higher than that of stumbling over a magical pike or halberd. The longsword was the weapon of choice for most fighters - PC or otherwise - so it stood to reason that there would be more magical ones in circulation. Which made it an even more popular choice.
Fighters in a 'standard' medieval campaign choosing the katana over the longsword (often because it did D10 damage one-handed) for specialisation were throwing themselves on the DM's mercy when it came to finding a magical weapon.
If your campaign is story based, then all characters should be assisted in finding a way to take the spotlight, but if combat is the most important element, then roll the dice and roll with the result. If people don't like the role they have chosen because their damage output is being overshadowed - then they should do something about it.
In MMO video games, yes, but not in D&D - that is absolutely not how the D&D game is designed to work. :)
I think that is an unfair treatment, albeit of an also unfair generalization.
I have to agree that its fair, not to mention that, with all due respect, your analysis is kind of lacking. The original trilogy of classes (fighting man, magic user and cleric) were designed around just casting big flashy spells, about being the best at weapons (and dealing damage with them), and then being the best at mixing magic and martial ability together into one class. Then, in the next edition, we added on rogue, who was designed to be a skill specialist, and have no relationship to damage, healing or "tanking." There was balance, but it was based around doing damage over time (fighting man) versus nova damage (magic user); they were all damage classes.
The idea that the so-called "trinity" of MMOs came from D&D is flawed on its face. It came from coding quirks and how mob AIs work. Unlike D&D, where the thief class got its time share because it could do things differently than any other class, especially out of combat, MMOs revolve around combat balance exclusively, and so had to make different ways of having each class's tactics stand out from each other. "Skill monkey" is not a valid option. Tactics aren't as dynamic in an MMO as well (how can they be, inventiveness isn't as possible). So, new quirks needed to be designed to create new ways of using tactics within set routines.
While D&D did have roles, they have no relationship to the MMO ones, and trying to suggest that MMO balance applies to D&D is misleading or mistaken. D&D is based on war games, yes, but you have to remember - it evolved from War games by saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could add STORY stuff to all this, and do more than fight?" D&D classes are balanced around the idea of spotlight sharing around the table. Everyone gets their share of the limelight.
Don't get me wrong, obviously you can take a Fighter and make them a tank or DPS, or a bit of both; you cannot make a Healer out of the class though (self-healing notwithstanding). Same with Barbarians, Monks and other classes.
This is patiently false in 5e. There's been combat healing from a few Fighter subclasses. Ancestral Guardians exist to reduce damage, but they could just as easily offered healing as just damage reduction, and worked perfectly fine. Monks, while there's nothing right now, there's also nothing stopping them from having healing powers in the future with a subclass. And nothing stops any of them from having magic items that will do the healing as well.
I can only recommend you try and step away from that mindset, and try and see things from a different angle. It sounds like your GM doesn't see things that way either, so what we have here seems to be a clash of playstyles. You want the game to work one way, the GM (and possibly players) have a different idea, and its clashing. So, one or the other is going to break here, or drag the entire group down into not having fun.
From the sounds of it, you've been asking for magic items to make you more effective in combat. Might I suggest asking for magic items unrelated to combat? Maybe a nice amulet of leadership? Or something that lets you explore better? Something to fill a non-combat need your party has.
For many MMOs, the trilogy is Tank, Healer, DPS, Controller. (DPS is often sub-divided into melee and ranged.)
For D&D, right from the outset in my little red book there was fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief.
I have recently started a new campaign that had two magic users, a ranger, and a monk. At the first opportunity, the sorcerer took a level of cleric. :D It's nice to be able to break away from 'the classic', but as far as combat goes, there's a reason it stood the test of time. Easier multi-classing has allowed groups to move slightly away from the time-tested trilogy of four, but at least for us older folk, it's still the go-to option.
Even if you want to argue that fighter, rogue, cleric + wizard are the D&D "roles," you're still left with that not matching up to the MMO trinity, and attempting to use the latter with the former is going to be a mismatch in most games.
Even if you want to argue that fighter, rogue, cleric + wizard are the D&D "roles," you're still left with that not matching up to the MMO trinity, and attempting to use the latter with the former is going to be a mismatch in most games.
You should read what people write, not what you think they write. :)
4th Edition D&D was heavily influenced by MMOs ;All classes and monsters were assigned roles. But then 4th edition was closer to Descent than it was D&D, so perhaps the designers realized a flaw in trying to produce a tabletop version of World of Warcraft. All classes and monsters were assigned roles.
If you don't like the MMO analogy, then why not Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery (including archers), and stretcher bearers.
Infantry hold positions and take the punishment, Artillery soften up the foe, Cavalry deal massive damage (when used correctly) and stretcher bearers bear stretchers.
For almost as long as man has waged war, there have been specialists, because that makes sense.
The idea that the so-called "trinity" of MMOs came from D&D is flawed on its face.
Tell that to all the old-school gamers that were saying things like "This party needs a meat shield" before any MMOs of note existed, and to adventure writers that included things along the lines of "In any event, the group should have at least one cleric, one magic-user, one thief, and a substantial number of fighters." (from B5 - Horror on the Hill) and would even sometimes use phrases like "front-line fighters" to describe what the adventure writer expected - that some character's would be standing on the front lines, which means others would not have to (thus soaking up the oppositions offense to a larger degree, just like "tanks" would be doing in the later MMOs)
...and trying to suggest that MMO balance applies to D&D is misleading or mistaken.
This phrase included in your reply to my post makes it seem like you believe I tried to make this silly suggestion. I actually did the opposite.
Healer feat is ok, but doesn't replace an actual healing class. Out of combat hp restoration isn't the same. Monk just took a nasty crit? Cleric throws a Heal. Tank is Paralyzed, best thing is going to be a Lesser Restoration. For the most part, our Cleric deals damage during a fight: faster fight means people take less damage is a good motto. Now some people might play a Healer like in an MMO and try to constantly top off hps every action. MUST throw a healing spell each round. THAT is difficult to do, but makes those crits more survivable if people aren't running around at 55% all the time.
Damage reduction isn't the same as healing, although granting other people reduction (Disadvantage on attacks against them) is always nice.
If there is no Healer in the party, the DM is probably going to make concessions to compensate. If an item can replace a Healer, the DM is probably still going to make changes. Same for any other class: If nobody can tank in the front lines, combat gets messy fast. Nobody able to deal damage consistently (without spending resources), then fights will drag out. Healer isn't the exception, its an example.
I know there are some classes/builds that really rely on short rests. IMO, makes dungeon crawls odd and more like trench warfare than going through a dungeon. Fights over, "Short rest!"...ok, we made it through one more corridor and cleared on 2 rooms. Dig in, fortify, rest for an hour. Rinse & repeat. Our current party doesn't need to do that usually, so we can continue our session without stopping for an hour after every 2 minute fight.
Requesting magic items that don't impact combat at all is a bit rare (I'm not sure what an Amulet of Leadership is), if we do get them and they don't require attunement...into the Bag of Holding the item goes.
Lastly, most people don't want to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, decent at everything but excellent at nothing. In a pen-and-paper, people who just have combat roles may sit and get glassy-eyed if there isn't multiple combats every play session.
Healer feat is ok, but doesn't replace an actual healing class.
In that it can't bring the dead back to life like most "healing class" characters eventually can, you are right. In that the feat doesn't provide enough healing for the game to work just fine with no other changes, evidence says otherwise.
Lastly, most people don't want to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, decent at everything but excellent at nothing.
Says who? All the survey information I've ever seen suggests that most people do prefer to be more of a jack-of-all-trades (or well-rounded, as it is usually phrased) over being more of a specialist at something to the exclusion of capability in other areas - since surveys have said very clearly that the general player base doesn't put much priority on optimization or "power gaming".
In a pen-and-paper, people who just have combat roles may sit and get glassy-eyed if there isn't multiple combats every play session.
Which sounds like those people would be having a more-enjoyable, less "glassy-eyed" experience if they had built their character as more of a jack-of-all-trades rather than electing to give their character "just" a combat role.
Excellent at one or 2 things and then "round out" your character, sure. If you're just average/decent at everything, then you'll rarely have your time to shine in the limelight. We have a player who has joked many times he's just going to make a character with the exact same stat in everything (I think he was going to point buy a 13 in everything and go Human for a +2 in all stats) and call him Joe. Then multiclass through the entire class list and skill list.
There are those people who just enjoy the combat: strategy, tactics, luck of the die in a do or die situation. They're often min-maxed powergamers with 2 topped off stats (say Str and Con or Int and Dex). Often one dimensional, they'd be happy if everyone could just stop role-playing, sum everything up as quick as possible and get to the next fight.
I'd rather have a character good in combat, a nice list of skills and features to fall back on out of combat and maybe something to do during downtime aside from "spend my money gambling, drinking and whoring". Was driving with my DM and he said that my character made many of the out of combat things so trifling, that he just skipped over it or couldn't use the campaign features: players can't get lost, can't go hungry, can't be slowed by difficult terrain. I was all, "Well...you could at least MENTION my guy helped the party 'skip' that stuff!"
Granted, its a large group of players. 8 at the table, not including the DM, isn't uncommon. What's the saying, can't please all the people all of the time.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersPun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
I think that is an unfair treatment, albeit of an also unfair generalization.
The whole basis for the roles that ended up hard-coded into video games of the appropriate sort comes from the way that the D&D game presented the different classes back in the day.
D&D fighting men could use all sorts of weapons, wear the best armor to be found, and could survive a bit more punishment than other classes (barring 'I picked the right spells' moments). That translated into video game RPGs as warrior-type characters having better hit points and defense and often better basic damage output, and evolved into the 'tank' role of MMORPGs when those came along. But in all cases, the fact is that there is a type of character that is better than other types of characters at being on the front-lines of a battle with the encountered enemies, but was worth those enemies not simply ignoring. Of course, full fairness means pointing out that the "dps" role as a stand-alone didn't really work in the old-school table-top games - the "dps" class was the same one as the "tank" class, because other classes had noteworthy limitations to their overall damage-dealing capability like thieves' backstab really only working as a fight-opener (even though the multiplied damage might also end that one opponent) and spell casters having limited spells that had to be carefully selected in advance and were likely to run into complications in their usage because of rules of the era being things like taking any damage during the round you are casting a spell means losing the spell.
The "healer" role found in MMOs comes from the fact that the D&D game (and many others that followed in its footsteps) treat healing as a special feature of the few classes that have it. That translated to video games to things like Final Fantasy's white mage, and evolved into MMORPG territory as classes whose primary function - their special feature - was to heal other characters.
And since inspiration is a cyclical thing, the versions of D&D throughout the years have been inspired by the things which took inspiration from the earlier versions of D&D, and the concepts of tanks, healers, and damage dealers have not just persisted in their original incidental/functional forms but have become an intentional part of the design of classes along the lines of those that deal the biggest damage being intended to have defensive weakness that can be shored up (either by choosing to focus less on dealing damage, or by another character), those that have access to healing not having as potent of offensive options and otherwise having weakness to shore up (either by choosing to focus less on healing, or by another character), and those that have the best survivability also not really having a whole lot else going for them except dealing enough damage to keep monsters (by way of DMs) finding it reasonable to attack them more than the other less-survival-ready characters that are nearby.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersTotally fair comments on the history of how we got to where we are now and you're right that D&D has definitely played that way in the past.
Much of it comes down to opinion and perspective I guess, as well as echo chambers - the people you play tabletop games with.
I'm not saying that there is a wrong and a right style to play D&D - that is a fools argument! If assigning roles to each class is something that is useful to a group, then that's cool.
For me, the right way to play D&D is just for everyone involved to have fun. :)
That said, I stand by my statement that 5th edition D&D isn't designed for each class to be assigned into tank, dps or healer roles.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Don't get me wrong, obviously you can take a Fighter and make them a tank or DPS, or a bit of both; you cannot make a Healer out of the class though (self-healing notwithstanding). Same with Barbarians, Monks and other classes. Each excess at certain roles - some are capable of doing all 3. Although if you tried to make a Paladin a tank, a healer AND a dps...that might take some work. Some classes can flip-flop, based on spell selection that day; particularly Druids/Clerics.
Now when I talk about my party, its the roles the player chose for their characters. Our Sorcerer can only be DPS, he doesn't have the AC to even think of tanking...nor the defensive spells for much crowd control. Although, he can be difficult to nail down for enemies to actually take a swing at him. The Cleric is a Cleric of War, so has some offensive capabilities and even surprised our DM with a Banishment spell that completely changed the fight. I (and the other Rogue) do DPS, can't heal much if at all and can take a bit of damage with Uncanny Dodge/Evasion helping out.
Actually, you can make any class capable of some respectable HP-restoration if you are playing with feats.
I'm only aware of 2 Feats that could help someone with that, Healer and Magic Initiate....but I'm just looking at the PHB.
As a DM I always tell my players D&D Isn't Skyrim, D&D Isn't fair. Everyone will not be able to use the same kinds of armor, and weapons. If you have a bucket load of HP, and can do an insane amount of damage in one round you don't need anything else. The mage or rogue who has under half your health and 1/3rd the AC is going to need that stuff way more then you will.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
I have to agree that its fair, not to mention that, with all due respect, your analysis is kind of lacking. The original trilogy of classes (fighting man, magic user and cleric) were designed around just casting big flashy spells, about being the best at weapons (and dealing damage with them), and then being the best at mixing magic and martial ability together into one class. Then, in the next edition, we added on rogue, who was designed to be a skill specialist, and have no relationship to damage, healing or "tanking." There was balance, but it was based around doing damage over time (fighting man) versus nova damage (magic user); they were all damage classes.
The idea that the so-called "trinity" of MMOs came from D&D is flawed on its face. It came from coding quirks and how mob AIs work. Unlike D&D, where the thief class got its time share because it could do things differently than any other class, especially out of combat, MMOs revolve around combat balance exclusively, and so had to make different ways of having each class's tactics stand out from each other. "Skill monkey" is not a valid option. Tactics aren't as dynamic in an MMO as well (how can they be, inventiveness isn't as possible). So, new quirks needed to be designed to create new ways of using tactics within set routines.
While D&D did have roles, they have no relationship to the MMO ones, and trying to suggest that MMO balance applies to D&D is misleading or mistaken. D&D is based on war games, yes, but you have to remember - it evolved from War games by saying, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could add STORY stuff to all this, and do more than fight?" D&D classes are balanced around the idea of spotlight sharing around the table. Everyone gets their share of the limelight.
For many MMOs, the trilogy is Tank, Healer, DPS, Controller. (DPS is often sub-divided into melee and ranged.)
For D&D, right from the outset in my little red book there was fighter, cleric, magic-user, and thief.
I have recently started a new campaign that had two magic users, a ranger, and a monk. At the first opportunity, the sorcerer took a level of cleric. :D
It's nice to be able to break away from 'the classic', but as far as combat goes, there's a reason it stood the test of time.
Easier multi-classing has allowed groups to move slightly away from the time-tested trilogy of four, but at least for us older folk, it's still the go-to option.
So long, and thanks for all the Gish.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Even if you want to argue that fighter, rogue, cleric + wizard are the D&D "roles," you're still left with that not matching up to the MMO trinity, and attempting to use the latter with the former is going to be a mismatch in most games.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
Tell that to all the old-school gamers that were saying things like "This party needs a meat shield" before any MMOs of note existed, and to adventure writers that included things along the lines of "In any event, the group should have at least one cleric, one magic-user, one thief, and a substantial number of fighters." (from B5 - Horror on the Hill) and would even sometimes use phrases like "front-line fighters" to describe what the adventure writer expected - that some character's would be standing on the front lines, which means others would not have to (thus soaking up the oppositions offense to a larger degree, just like "tanks" would be doing in the later MMOs)
This phrase included in your reply to my post makes it seem like you believe I tried to make this silly suggestion. I actually did the opposite.Healer feat is ok, but doesn't replace an actual healing class. Out of combat hp restoration isn't the same. Monk just took a nasty crit? Cleric throws a Heal. Tank is Paralyzed, best thing is going to be a Lesser Restoration. For the most part, our Cleric deals damage during a fight: faster fight means people take less damage is a good motto. Now some people might play a Healer like in an MMO and try to constantly top off hps every action. MUST throw a healing spell each round. THAT is difficult to do, but makes those crits more survivable if people aren't running around at 55% all the time.
Damage reduction isn't the same as healing, although granting other people reduction (Disadvantage on attacks against them) is always nice.
If there is no Healer in the party, the DM is probably going to make concessions to compensate. If an item can replace a Healer, the DM is probably still going to make changes. Same for any other class: If nobody can tank in the front lines, combat gets messy fast. Nobody able to deal damage consistently (without spending resources), then fights will drag out. Healer isn't the exception, its an example.
I know there are some classes/builds that really rely on short rests. IMO, makes dungeon crawls odd and more like trench warfare than going through a dungeon. Fights over, "Short rest!"...ok, we made it through one more corridor and cleared on 2 rooms. Dig in, fortify, rest for an hour. Rinse & repeat. Our current party doesn't need to do that usually, so we can continue our session without stopping for an hour after every 2 minute fight.
Requesting magic items that don't impact combat at all is a bit rare (I'm not sure what an Amulet of Leadership is), if we do get them and they don't require attunement...into the Bag of Holding the item goes.
Lastly, most people don't want to be a Jack-of-all-Trades, decent at everything but excellent at nothing. In a pen-and-paper, people who just have combat roles may sit and get glassy-eyed if there isn't multiple combats every play session.
In that it can't bring the dead back to life like most "healing class" characters eventually can, you are right. In that the feat doesn't provide enough healing for the game to work just fine with no other changes, evidence says otherwise.
Says who? All the survey information I've ever seen suggests that most people do prefer to be more of a jack-of-all-trades (or well-rounded, as it is usually phrased) over being more of a specialist at something to the exclusion of capability in other areas - since surveys have said very clearly that the general player base doesn't put much priority on optimization or "power gaming".
Which sounds like those people would be having a more-enjoyable, less "glassy-eyed" experience if they had built their character as more of a jack-of-all-trades rather than electing to give their character "just" a combat role.Excellent at one or 2 things and then "round out" your character, sure. If you're just average/decent at everything, then you'll rarely have your time to shine in the limelight. We have a player who has joked many times he's just going to make a character with the exact same stat in everything (I think he was going to point buy a 13 in everything and go Human for a +2 in all stats) and call him Joe. Then multiclass through the entire class list and skill list.
There are those people who just enjoy the combat: strategy, tactics, luck of the die in a do or die situation. They're often min-maxed powergamers with 2 topped off stats (say Str and Con or Int and Dex). Often one dimensional, they'd be happy if everyone could just stop role-playing, sum everything up as quick as possible and get to the next fight.
I'd rather have a character good in combat, a nice list of skills and features to fall back on out of combat and maybe something to do during downtime aside from "spend my money gambling, drinking and whoring". Was driving with my DM and he said that my character made many of the out of combat things so trifling, that he just skipped over it or couldn't use the campaign features: players can't get lost, can't go hungry, can't be slowed by difficult terrain. I was all, "Well...you could at least MENTION my guy helped the party 'skip' that stuff!"
Granted, its a large group of players. 8 at the table, not including the DM, isn't uncommon. What's the saying, can't please all the people all of the time.