D&D 5E Another healing poll: what other types of healing do you want (or not want) to see?

[MatthewJHanson]

A couple of comments not reflected in the poll.

I'd like clerics to have a magical healing option that is NOT spells.

I like potions, but not wands. I dislike the general idea of wands as just an item to store spells, and I think CLW is the worst offender.

 

[TerraDave]

I would like to see not just cleric healing. I can understand not allowing wizards or closely related classes, but bards, druids, and, in more limited form, paladins and rangers should also have some. And the clerics healing advantage should not be massive.

I do not want any kind of "at will" healing. You have to loose a (daily) spell, a hit die or surge, a potion, your packet of herbs...

 

[Minigiant]

One thing I'd like to see is regeneration.

I remember one game where the DM gave each PC an epic ally to help them out. The epic rogue sold discount magic items and potions. The high cleric would heal from afar if you called him on his calling stone.

The alchemist injected the player with a liquid which healed a little HP an hour and triple the amount when asleep or trancing. It was cool.

But I like healing to be more stable. I don't care if it is a cleric, potions, or wands. Each instance should add no more than 20% to the base daily healing.

 

[Starfox]

My (most generous) votes apply strictly to a d20-type game where you take constant abstract damage and there is no self-healing. My true preference is for a damage system that generally results in fatigue and defeat by being out-matched, where physical wounds are a rare thing, and thus healing can be even more rare - and thus dramatic.

...wands of cure light wounds is something I never want to see in the game again. At that point, you might as well simply refresh HP at the end of each fight, because that's what CLW wands mean.

This is pretty much how I do it in my homebrew - "hits" represent stress and fatigue and automatically recovered after 5 minutes of rest. More serious injuries are quite rare.

 

[Kinak]

It depends a lot on the game's assumptions. If everyone's expected to go into battle topped off every time, healing should flow like water (and probably be handled through short rests rather than anything magical or the like).

On the other hand, if resources are expected to be pulled down throughout the adventure, healing needs to be handled very carefully.

I personally like herbs or other first aid supplies as a solution, so that we can put healing in the hands of anyone with the appropriate skills rather than restricting it to a few classes.

Potions and cleric spells are sort of expected for it to be D&D, but wands need to be completely rebalanced or just go away.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ahnehnois]

It depends a lot on the game's assumptions.

It does, but that's the thing. To me, there should be as few of those (assumptions) as possible. Whether the DM wants to challenge players by subjecting them to threats when their resources are taxed is his decision. Whether the players want to focus on healing and rest at every chance or focus on other things and press forward even when they're not at 100% is their choice.

I don't think there should be any assumption one way or the other on these types of things.

 

[jrowland]

I prefer limited cleric healing. The poll suggests less spells, but I'd probably prefer something along the lines of "Can only use CLW when target is bloodied" type of thing.

As for mundane, semi-limited is where I stand. That is, you can't just slap some leaves on a wound and get HP, but Alchemists can create "Potions", "Poultices", and the like that do. That is, you need a "doctor" to treat a wound to regain HP, which usually means outside of combat.

As for items: I loathe "spell storage items" such as wands, staves, potions, etc. I don't mind if they mimic effects (ie the rules say it functions as spell X y/day) but the idea of storing a bunch of spells is lame to me. I'd prefer it if those items were more spell augmenters (ie metamagic) or limited use (like a chime of opening - functionally a knock spell, but not storing knock spells for a caster to use)

 

[Kinak]

It does, but that's the thing. To me, there should be as few of those (assumptions) as possible. Whether the DM wants to challenge players by subjecting them to threats when their resources are taxed is his decision. Whether the players want to focus on healing and rest at every chance or focus on other things and press forward even when they're not at 100% is their choice.

​

I don't think there should be any assumption one way or the other on these types of things.

We're probably just using terms differently because, to me, it sounds like you're advocating for a different set of assumptions.

You're suggesting a fairly nuanced situation where the players make strategic decisions on how much healing they want and the DM can push back against that by threatening them while their resources are low. Which is totally fine, that's exactly how I'd want to run things too, but it's definitely an assumption the game would have to be designed around.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Shrander]

Healing fits into this overall picture in that I want the "mundane" and magical healing to be either both gonzo or both subtle/"realistic". Having magical healing work instantaneously and "mundane" healing work glacially slowly does not fulfill my wishes at all. On top of that, game considerations must be considered. Healing that is not limited by any important resource - whether it be "Wands of CLW", "Healing Potions" or "Healing Herbs" that cure 1d3 hp for 1gp a pop - makes a travesty of supposed in-game danger (which needs to be limited, but not non-existant).

This, absolutely. I do not give a tinker's damn what form magical healing takes. I'm more interested in how it works, and how dependent on it the party is expected to be.

 

[Starfox]

It does, but that's the thing. To me, there should be as few of those (assumptions) as possible. Whether the DM wants to challenge players by subjecting them to threats when their resources are taxed is his decision. Whether the players want to focus on healing and rest at every chance or focus on other things and press forward even when they're not at 100% is their choice.

I don't think there should be any assumption one way or the other on these types of things.

I believe there has to be assumptions about these things n the rules.

I don't think any single set of rules can cover both situations. Combat either has lasting effects, or it has not. Healing is either fast, slow, or something ib between. How the game sets these variables fundamentally affects what can be done in the game. A game can be house ruled (drifted) from one playstyle to another, or could actually have variables the GM can set before play begins, but then it is not really the same set of rules.

In a game like mine, where combat generally results only in bruises and recovery from bruises are quick, I can make a subplot of damage if a story hinges on it - which I'd generally do to an NPC. So a "easy healing" game can handle "slow healing" plot as a special plot hook when needed. This would of course work less well in a sandbox, heavily simulationist game where the GM is not supposed to drive a plot.