D&D 5E 2/18/13 L&L column

[I'm A Banana]

I think this is an area with a lot of overlapping issues. Healing is probably so scattered in the data because it's a multifaceted issue.

Ultimately, for the "basic" game, the raw D&D experience, having magical cleric healing being the only real healing available beyond a full night's sleep (which might not even heal you to full) is probably fine, on the first, simplest, most basic level.

However, even there, we absolutely want to avoid the "somebody must play a cleric" problem. Nothing is going to defeat a newbie's enthusiasm quite like being told that there's this awesome game of warriors and wizards out there, and that everyone else will be playing those classes, but you have to play a cleric -- the guy whose main job is to hand out HP's.

So we absolutely want a group entirely made up of Fighters to be totally OK with not having anyone there as a heal-bot.

Which ultimately means that, magical or not, we're going to need to give these fighters access to something that does the same thing that healing does.

A mechanic that lets them ignore damage could fill that role, of course. Mathematically, there's not a big difference between ignoring 1d8 points of damage and healing 1d8 points of damage. It's all in the psychology after that. Which means you absolutely want to be clear, even in the Basic game, that a Cleric is a useful team member to have, but they aren't essential.

If you can pull that off, you're probably solid for the Basic game.

And then we can worry about options for non-magical healing when we're out of the "pure D&D experience" woods. It's vital that 5e have such an option, I feel, but it probably doesn't have to be in the Basic game. As long as even there, nobody is forced mechanically to play a cleric, we're probably solid.

If anyone is forced to play the cleric (or any "substitute cleric" Leader), though, we've got issues, even in the Basic game, 'cuz that's gonna lead to bored first-timers being made to play a role they're not into just because the party "needs" one.

 

[Libramarian]

Which means you absolutely want to be clear, even in the Basic game, that a Cleric is a useful team member to have, but they aren't essential.

This seems perfectly doable with adjustments elsewhere in the game -- you just have to convince people that it's ok to adventure with less than full HP.

Most encounters in an adventure should not be potentially lethal unless you're walking around with very low HP. The boss battle that's actually designed to be tough with everybody in the party at full HP should be telegraphed in advance so the party can rest up first.

Reduce the power of clerical healing if necessary.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Between the last L&L "Fighters can't have nice things - just roleplay!" and this one "let's just make every party have a cleric for healing!" I'm starting to wonder if WotC isn't trolling us.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Between the last L&L "Fighters can't have nice things - just roleplay!" and this one "let's just make every party have a cleric for healing!" I'm starting to wonder if WotC isn't trolling us.

Maybe they should change the name of L&L to "Reasons NOT to Buy 5E".

 

[Garthanos]

Maybe they should change the name of L&L to "Reasons NOT to Buy 5E".

The Cleric in every party motto it seems tuned for right now.. is high on my list.

 

[Sunseeker]

I hate the trinity, but no trinity is just as bad. NEEDing people to fill specific roles in the party is just as bad as having no roles for anyone, or having everyone do all roles. All classes should have some way to cover the bases of defense, offense and support, but their degree of focusing on that is certainly variable. The cleric might be capable of lots of healing, a little defense, and moderate offense. At the bare minimum, giving everyone something like "second wind" is a pretty safe trick to allow everyone a little self-healing.

HP are abstract, so healing doesn't need to be totally concrete to keep up.

I've run healer-less games. It's not impossible, though it is certainly easier in 4e where everyone has some degree of personal healing. Even when they don't, it's a simple matter of tuning the encounter to have the enemies fall easier and deal less damage. Though even higher levels of damage can be tolerated assuming the foe doesn't survive too long.

 

[DonAdam]

So let's say we have a game in which (on average) 4-6 characters go adventuring and, over the course of the day, their resources are whittled down.

Sometimes (actually quite often) those resources are asymmetrically depleted for one character. This creates a strong incentive for the group as a whole to stop and replenish, decreasing their chances of failing any given challenge and--more importantly--keeping the player of said character engaged rather than on the sidelines.

How do you solve that problem for all groups in a way that doesn't make any one type of character obligatory?

 

[pemerton]

Most encounters in an adventure should not be potentially lethal unless you're walking around with very low HP.

I feel this rules out 1st level classic D&D play - would you agree?

Reduce the power of clerical healing if necessary.

I think that is an interesting suggestion that needs serious consideration. At least, as per the ideas upthread in [MENTION=3424]FireLance[/MENTION]'s post, the relevant mathematical equivalences need to be worked out, and the spells designed around them.

 

[pemerton]

So let's say we have a game in which (on average) 4-6 characters go adventuring and, over the course of the day, their resources are whittled down.

Sometimes (actually quite often) those resources are asymmetrically depleted for one character. This creates a strong incentive for the group as a whole to stop and replenish, decreasing their chances of failing any given challenge and--more importantly--keeping the player of said character engaged rather than on the sidelines.

How do you solve that problem for all groups in a way that doesn't make any one type of character obligatory?

My preferred approach is for the game mechanics to give the players, as a group, a reasonable capacity to control whose resources get whittled away, so they can play towards equalisation if that's what they want.

But that's a pretty abstract statement of a design goal, and I don't have any sense of how close D&Dnext gets to it.

 

[delericho]

"Our goal has been to remove cleric healing as a necessary element of adventuring."

And that, IMO, is the first mistake. The goal should have been to remove any kind of healing as a necessary element of adventuring.

I can't XP you again, but I agree with everything in this post.