D&D 5E Healing Surges, Hit Dice, Martial Healing, and Overnight recovery: Which ones do you like?

[Ashkelon]

Here is a really simple solution to all this.

Have fast HP recovery as default. This allows for the most playstyles. A group can be made of 2 wizards and 2 fighters, 4 rogues, a monk a barbarian a warlock and a sorcerer, or any combination you can think of without hindering the story. Nobody needs to play a healer, and the DM doesn't need to adjust encounters and pacing for the fact that there is no dedicated healer.

For the groups who don't like fast HP recover, allow them to change it to 1 HP per long rest or 1 per lever each long rest or anything in between. But give them tools for how to deal with slower HP recovery. Inform them that with slower HP recovery, the group will take more long rests between encounters, or that as the DM you will need to hand out healing potions like candy, or groups will absolutely need magical healing. Using slower HP recovery will be more challenging for both the party and the DM, but as long as the DMs know what they are getting into by using the optional slow HP recovery module, this shouldn't be an issue.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Here is a really simple solution to all this.

Have fast HP recovery as default. This allows for the most playstyles. A group can be made of 2 wizards and 2 fighters, 4 rogues, a monk a barbarian a warlock and a sorcerer, or any combination you can think of without hindering the story. Nobody needs to play a healer, and the DM doesn't need to adjust encounters and pacing for the fact that there is no dedicated healer.

No.

I highly doubt fast healing fits "most" playstyles. I run a game every week. There is no dedicated healer. I do not adjust encounters based on party composition. The game works as intended.

Fast hp recovery can be an option for those who want to plow through every encounter at full hp. But if it's the default, anyone NOT using it is going to get hosed using any published adventure because it will assume the default option. Making your product useless to a majority of people to pacify the few who scream the loudest is not a good way to attract customers.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Actually, 3rd edition got rid of the "somebodies got to play the cleric" with the invention of domains and spontaneous healing. You could design your cleric a multitude of ways and as long as he was good or neutral, he could heal.

That is not a factor of 3rd edition. No one has ever HAD to play a cleric. The game functions fine without them, it functions fine when a cleric is played as the defender of the faith and prepares very few or no healing spells. And it functions fine with a "healbot" if that's how you like to play. It's been that way since the beginning.

 

[Balesir]

I run a game every week. There is no dedicated healer. I do not adjust encounters based on party composition. The game works as intended.

Fast hp recovery can be an option for those who want to plow through every encounter at full hp. But if it's the default, anyone NOT using it is going to get hosed using any published adventure because it will assume the default option.

Huh? Let me try to understand why this isn't a contradiction:

- Your regular play party has no healer (so they presumably aren't at full hp going into some combat encounters)

- You say you don't adjust encounters, so presumably you use those in some edition of D&D, which will either be assuming a "fit" party (3.x CRs or 4E ELs) or randomly selected (other D&D editions)

- This causes no problems

- But using encounters that assume a "fit" party in DDN would cause problems unless healing is fast???

What do you imagine will be iniquitous about DDN that other editions haven't had? Why should something you say has not caused you a problem hitherto suddenly start creating issues?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Huh? Let me try to understand why this isn't a contradiction:

- Your regular play party has no healer (so they presumably aren't at full hp going into some combat encounters)

Correct.

- You say you don't adjust encounters, so presumably you use those in some edition of D&D, which will either be assuming a "fit" party (3.x CRs or 4E ELs) or randomly selected (other D&D editions)

Actually, I play 1E.

- This causes no problems

Correct.

- But using encounters that assume a "fit" party in DDN would cause problems unless healing is fast???

Because any published module will assume the party is at full health, ergo all encounters will be balanced for a party with access to all spells and at full hit points. Any party NOT using fast healing and at will magic will be at a distinct disadvantage. Pre 4e, and especially pre 3e (wands of clw) no such assumption was made.

 

[gweinel]

Imho, all these polls and threads about healing/resting show two interelated things
a) the dnd ppl are really divided regarding the healing/resting which means they want different pace and tempo in their game.

b)if dndnext wants to have a chance of success must cater both groups of gamers. The "gritty" AND the "heroic" ones.

I really hope wizards to follow an inclusive approach having rules and most of all having support for both styles of game (and the inbetweeners). I consider failing to this will lead to a failure.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Any party NOT using fast healing and at will magic will be at a distinct disadvantage.

Disadvantaged compared to who?

Unless your table is competing against other tables in a tournament or something... there's no "disadvantage". It just means you don't progress as far in the module before you take a rest compared to other people, none of which you'll ever see. But who cares about that? I don't know why you would. As you say, you don't play with a healer, you don't have any problems, you don't need to adjust anything. So why would needing to rest be an issue for you now? It shouldn't be. Resting is what you already do. Resting is what you'll have to do. So why would it matter that these rests occur more frequently than these fictional other players at these invisible other tables you'll never actually see? Especially considering you're ALREADY progressing slower than them because you don't use a healer.

Makes little sense.

 

[pemerton]

I've already shown that nobody had to play the cleric.

You mean here?

there are other classes such as the bard, rogue, paladin, and ranger who can be a back up healer and do just fine.

As has been posted, a paladin or ranger is not an adequate healer. By "rogue" I assume you mean "rogue using UMD"? That's not my personal conception of a rogue.

 

[Hussar]

Correct.



Actually, I play 1E.



Correct.



Because any published module will assume the party is at full health, ergo all encounters will be balanced for a party with access to all spells and at full hit points. Any party NOT using fast healing and at will magic will be at a distinct disadvantage. Pre 4e, and especially pre 3e (wands of clw) no such assumption was made.

That's because pre-4 and 3e, PC's were much, much more powerful relative to the creatures in the game. A 3rd or 4th level 1e fighter, in plate mail and shield+1 and a decent Dex (say 16) is only getting hit about 1 in 10 or 15 attacks against him. It was relatively easy to get to the point where your heavy armour types could stand toe to toe with most foes and come out of the fighter barely wounded.

3e and 4e changed that by making individual monsters a challenge for the entire party. They hit far more often, take several more hits to put down and do more damage per hit.

So, yes, you can get away without healing easier in earlier editions, but, compared to a group which has healing in 1e, your group is very, very slow. Eventually you are going go have to rest to regain hit points. Fair enough. However, compared to a group which can heal, you are going to be far slower paced.

A group adventuring through Secret of the Slave Lords Stockade will have a much easier time of it if they have a cleric compared to one that doesn't.

How are you not at a distinct disadvantage in 1e?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Disadvantaged compared to who?

Unless your table is competing against other tables in a tournament or something... there's no "disadvantage". It just means you don't progress as far in the module before you take a rest compared to other people, none of which you'll ever see. But who cares about that? I don't know why you would. As you say, you don't play with a healer, you don't have any problems, you don't need to adjust anything. So why would needing to rest be an issue for you now? It shouldn't be.
Makes little sense.

I never said there wasn't healing spells available. My current group has one cleric, but he rarely prepares cure spells. He prefers offensive or defensive spells like command or bless. And in fact, only has access to cure light wounds until 7th level in any case.

Resting is what you already do. Resting is what you'll have to do. So why would it matter that these rests occur more frequently than these fictional other players at these invisible other tables you'll never actually see? Especially considering you're ALREADY progressing slower than them because you don't use a healer.

Incorrect. Resting is only done when necessary. When spells are exhausted, the magic user picks up a weapon or throws oil and holy water. When down on hit points, they suck it up and move on. Only when someone - usually more than one - is very badly wounded do they fall back and rest. That's an entire playstyle invalidated by everyone regenerating like trolls.