D&D 5E 2/18/13 L&L column

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
You know, if by default no single source of healing did very much, you could "boost" certain sources or pile on additional sources in your campaign to set the level of healing that you wanted. Maybe clerical magic does a little, herbs do a little, healing kits do a little, rest does a little, etc.
I think you may have an idea its not that there is healing magic its because it is generally so strong any sort of default healing is only met or completely not met/on off
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
...and here I thought they relied on the "gimme your money, rubes" effect. :)

Be kind people who believe they will get better -seem to heal something like twice as fast as those with less sense of certainty according to some studying this stuff. (no cant remember where I read it and exactly how do you measure that belief I dont know)
 



variant

Adventurer
Fantastic! We have an agreement.

No healing in core, magical or mundane.

Sound good?

Not having healing is a deal breaker for me. It has to be balanced around healing if there is ever going to be healing because the basic damage output determines it. If you don't balance it round healing, you are going to get a game that has zero danger.
 

Dire Human

First Post
Not having healing is a deal breaker for me. It has to be balanced around healing if there is ever going to be healing because the basic damage output determines it. If you don't balance it round healing, you are going to get a game that has zero danger.

I was more indicating no healing as class feature, rather than no healing at all. Resting and medicine kits and Heal checks are ways to get rid of damage that don't preclude someone playing a certain class or role in every game, which is the point.
 

FireLance

Legend
I don't object to parry on its own but I would object to baking in parry mechanics that are explicitly designed to get around having a cleric.
I am curious as to what you mean by "get around having a cleric".

In my ideal game, the specific composition of the party should not matter most of the time.

For example, if a party composed of a fighter, a rogue, a monk and a wizard and another party composed of a fighter, a rogue, a cleric and a wizard were to undertake the same generic adventure and fight the same generic encounters, they each ought to have to rest at approximately the same time. The presence of the cleric should only matter occasionally (say, less than 10% of the time): in the case of asymmetric hit point depletion mentioned by DonAdam, and in the case of encounters with undead.

With the exception of these circumstances, if the cleric-less party can fight four encounters before it has to rest, the party with a cleric should also only be able to fight four encounters before it has to rest.

In my ideal game, there is thus no need to "get around having a cleric" because whether or not you have a cleric, the party has approximtely the same level of capability. For me, it is actually a problem (or at the very least, a weakness) if a party with a cleric would, on average, be able to take on an additional encounter before it needs to rest.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
I am curious as to what you mean by "get around having a cleric".
You have to die easily, suffer and catch gangrene and lose limbs, like a good victim of Fantasy Vietnam where hit points are meat chunks being cut away with every stroke.

ummmm sorry got carried away.
 

Remove ads

Top