D&D 5E Healing in 5E

[Majoru Oakheart]

I agree that it was often spread out (usually by good tactics from the PCs, or baaaaaaaaaaaad play from the DM), but "non-surge healing"? Wat? Non-surge healing was very rare and very weak in 4E in my experience, to the point where it was basically irrelevant.

It depends on the group. The people I know liked to abuse a bunch of stuff. Like the totem that when you put it down would heal everyone if anyone within a radius of the totem spent a healing surge. Or the Cleric Daily that healed everyone every round they spent in it. We had one person who was convinced Shaman was broken because he'd abuse magic items and feats that added to healing in order to allow one person to spend a healing surge and then heal someone ELSE for around 40 or 50 points. Whenever anyone would get low on surges, we'd break out the ritual that allowed you to transfer surges from one PC to another. Plus the other cure utility spells that didn't take surges from clerics.

Using those methods, we would use the surges of the people who rarely got hit(like the Wizard) and give the healing to the Defender.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Like the totem that when you put it down would heal everyone if anyone within a radius of the totem spent a healing surge. Or the Cleric Daily that healed everyone every round they spent in it. We had one person who was convinced Shaman was broken because he'd abuse magic items and feats that added to healing in order to allow one person to spend a healing surge and then heal someone ELSE for around 40 or 50 points.

This matches my experience. Especially with LFR, but in home games, too.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Granted, 1E and 2E had many similar issues, but it seems that 3E and 4E resolved some of those. Are we really back down to 2 to 4 encounters before we call it a day?

At first level, yes, but remember that first is an 'Apprentice' level and it takes very little exp to get to second. You might hit second by the time you've had those 2-4 encounters. You're also pretty likely to die from a single hit at 1st level (another good reason for it to go /very/ quickly), another classic-D&D-ism. Also, 5e encounters are designed to be quicker & easier encounters, to keep the game fast-paced, so some of them may very well be 'trivial' enough that you can squeeze in more before the party collapses or someone dies.

Remember, getting back to an AD&D feel is one of the (many, often contradictory) things 'Next' set out to accomplish.
This is a success.

Also consider that Mearls came out and said that 5e was going to be 'balanced' around the assumption of a 4-5 encounter or 16-25 round 'day.' (this was in an L&L before the playtest even started, IIRC, so he may have changed his mind - but if he has, I haven't heard anything about it...)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I do not want trivial encounters for the most part. Same issue that I had with 4E minions. No threat. No risk. After a while, I might as well be playing PvE WoW if the group wants to just farm mooks.

The risk is whether you'll get hit at all, in a fight that should be a flawless victory.

It's like if you're playing Double Dragon, you should be able to take out Williams and Linda without getting hit, but it can be tricky to beat Abobo without dying. Your chance of beating Abobo goes down significantly if you took too much damage from Williams and Linda. So, while you get to feel awesome for beating up a bunch of Williamses, how well you beat them up actually matters. That's the threat. That's the risk.

(Which all goes out the window if you have easy healing, of course.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In the 5e campaign I started with the kids none of them selected the cleric so I put healing surges in the game to replace cleric helping and hit dice.

I'm curious what you'd do if they weren't kids. When I create a character, I want to increase the party's chance of survival. That would put me in a really weird place if I knew that a cleric would help the party most, but it would help the party even more if not playing a cleric meant everyone gets free healing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Healing was always scarce so you would have a row of hirelings be the first guys in and then the PCs would try to either fight from behind them or with missile weapons. We also ran a lot when things got bad..

In my experience, healing was rare but encounters were rarer. We might have two weeks to get from point A to point B, but without a cleric, you could get hurt on day three and still be feeling it on day twelve. Then again, due to the lack of encounter guidelines, 2E was the last edition where your experience would vary heavily based on the DM.

 

[keterys]

I'm curious what you'd do if they weren't kids. When I create a character, I want to increase the party's chance of survival. That would put me in a really weird place if I knew that a cleric would help the party most, but it would help the party even more if not playing a cleric meant everyone gets free healing.

I'm just sad that they'll get such a drastic difference in playability of the system just from having that one class there or not.

It's not exactly fun to have rounds of "Okay, who has to play the <insert unpopular class for this group>?"

 

[Agamon]

I'm not convinced that there are too many different game styles. Every D&D or Pathfinder game I enter for a given version, it seems pretty much like all of the rest with a few house rules sometime thrown in. I suspect that it is a very narrow bell curve. The players tend to play pretty much the same. Sometimes we have better maps.

I live it. I'm playing in 4 games right now, all quite different.

The Pathfinder game I play in is quite plot heavy; so thick, in fact, it's quite difficult to turn and go your own way. Being an experienced GM myself, I can see through the illusion of choice that is set up for us. But it's still fun. Good roleplay and some fun fights.

The 4e game I play in is very beer and pretzels. I don't think my PC even has a back story, which is okay, as the DM is just running us through unmodified published adventures. Scratches my tactical itch.

I also play in an Edge of the Empire game. The cool thing about EotE is that PC backgrounds are brought in game through the mechanics and the game is very player-driven. This one I'm enjoying a lot.

My 5e game, the one I actually run, is sort of a mix of the previous three. There is a metaplot, but it basically came to me when discussing the game with the players and their thoughts one what the group was about. The PCs have back stories with a lot of hooks, some that tie in with the main plot, some that don't, all that will be dealt with during the game. The players can respond to events that happen however they choose, or not respond, their choice. Combat is played with minis and map on Roll20 (we once lived in the same city and are now spread out, so online is how I play with these guys), as the players like the tactical combat, and I like 5e's faster fights so we can push forward (our twice monthly sessions are sadly short).

I don't mind playing in different games, but I only really like running one style, one where I'm often surprised and never bored. But, to the point, there are different styles of games out there.

 

[KarinsDad]

The risk is whether you'll get hit at all, in a fight that should be a flawless victory.

It's like if you're playing Double Dragon, you should be able to take out Williams and Linda without getting hit, but it can be tricky to beat Abobo without dying. Your chance of beating Abobo goes down significantly if you took too much damage from Williams and Linda. So, while you get to feel awesome for beating up a bunch of Williamses, how well you beat them up actually matters. That's the threat. That's the risk.

(Which all goes out the window if you have easy healing, of course.)

So now the game is called Double & Dragon???

I get what you are saying, but the point is that too many Williams and Linda fights are boring. I even upped all minions in my game to "tough minions" (1 hit bloodies, another hit kills, a critical kills, and a massive hit kills) because single hit minions were not only a joke. They were so much of a joke that some players found them to be annoying more than those same players felt victorious wading through a bunch of them. Some players enjoy the thrill of overcoming interesting fights (due to both terrain disadvantages and due to interesting monster capabilities) a lot more than just slogging through monsters that have no special abilities other than taking and doing minor damage. The WotC intent of minions kind of backfired in some of our games.

 

[MortalPlague]

I get what you are saying, but the point is that too many Williams and Linda fights are boring.

I'm preparing for a game tonight. My PCs seek the Hall of Bells so they can slay the mummy lord Queen Teera and end the curse upon them. They have a six hour trek through the tunnels to reach the Halls, then they must find and destroy her.

First, the Queen has patrols led by shades who are seeking the PCs. None of these patrols could take down the party on their own, but they give her valuable information (how far the PCs are) and they wear down the party.

Once the PCs find her lair, she has a gatekeeper shield guardian and a golem who will attempt to wear down the party even further.

Finally, she has animated a zombified purple worm to really put the beat-down on the party.

Then they arrive at her, and if they manage to do it, they are in for quite the fight.

---

Personally, I don't consider any of those lead-up fights to be boring. There will be opportunities for the party to slip past or avoid some of them, which would end up being clever play. The more they avoid, the better the chance they could take down their nemesis. But she's not going to make it easy for them.