D&D 5E High level 5e without healing
- Thread starter Blue
- Start date
Combat healing, in my limited 5E experience, is not needed nearly as much as in 4E. Only in deadly encounters does it appear to almost always be needed. I haven't seen high level combat yet, but I have seen lower level combats in hard encounters where a PC or two went unconscious and was not healed until after the encounter.
The reason for this, IMO, is that encounters are shorter in 5E. As a rough rule of thumb in 5E:
Easy: 2 to 3 rounds
Moderate: 3 to 4 rounds
Hard: 4 to 5 rounds
Deadly: 5 to 6 rounds
If there is only one foe remaining when a PC goes unconscious, there tends to be 3 or 4 other PCs attacks occurring before that foe gets to attack again and usually, that foe is typically toast at that point (unless it is a BBEG). Granted, there are always exceptions, but healing in 5E is not as required and I've only seen healing done (as a general rule TMK) in hard or deadly fights. Easy or moderate fights where the PCs are basically mopping up the opposition starting in round one generally do not require healing.
In 4E, healing was done left and right once PCs got bloodied (and at some tables, the moment a PC got injured).
Not only this, but about half of the 5E classes / subclasses have access to healing (or alternatively, damage mitigation which is more or less the same thing, just not typically on others). So many PCs can heal (4 out of 6 in our current group) that it is usually available when needed. But from what I can tell, 5E is no longer a game like 4E where bloodied or unconscious PCs almost always have to be healed. The encounters are so quick and the opposition goes down so quickly that it is often detrimental to take out an action to heal someone with a more powerful healing spell (like Cure Wounds over Healing Word).
But at my table, PCs only heal other PCs in combat in about 1 encounter in 4 or 5 maybe (difficulty depending). In 4E, that generally was almost every encounter.
The reason for this, IMO, is that encounters are shorter in 5E. As a rough rule of thumb in 5E:
Easy: 2 to 3 rounds
Moderate: 3 to 4 rounds
Hard: 4 to 5 rounds
Deadly: 5 to 6 rounds
If there is only one foe remaining when a PC goes unconscious, there tends to be 3 or 4 other PCs attacks occurring before that foe gets to attack again and usually, that foe is typically toast at that point (unless it is a BBEG). Granted, there are always exceptions, but healing in 5E is not as required and I've only seen healing done (as a general rule TMK) in hard or deadly fights. Easy or moderate fights where the PCs are basically mopping up the opposition starting in round one generally do not require healing.
In 4E, healing was done left and right once PCs got bloodied (and at some tables, the moment a PC got injured).
Not only this, but about half of the 5E classes / subclasses have access to healing (or alternatively, damage mitigation which is more or less the same thing, just not typically on others). So many PCs can heal (4 out of 6 in our current group) that it is usually available when needed. But from what I can tell, 5E is no longer a game like 4E where bloodied or unconscious PCs almost always have to be healed. The encounters are so quick and the opposition goes down so quickly that it is often detrimental to take out an action to heal someone with a more powerful healing spell (like Cure Wounds over Healing Word).
But at my table, PCs only heal other PCs in combat in about 1 encounter in 4 or 5 maybe (difficulty depending). In 4E, that generally was almost every encounter.
FormerlyHemlock
Hero
I have only run my guys past CR 13 monsters at the highest so far, but the only healing that ever happens is Grim Harvest/Vampiric Touch and short rest HD. The lack of in-combat healing hasn't been an issue.
I won't say that your guys will be fine without a cleric, but I will say they CAN be fine without a cleric. They'll want some form of ablative resources but it doesn't have to be HP (my guys use zombies but you can also use elementals or hirelings, or Luck rolls, or spell slots in the case of Shield spells/Mirror Image/Blink).
Honestly 5E is pretty forgiving and you can probably get away with no healer in many, many party configurations. The only case I can see NEEDING a healer is in a melee-focused party with poor AC and a straightforward approach to most combats. Even then I'd have to run done tests before concluding that HD healing was insufficient. HD healing is already better than clerical healing was in AD&D, and there are more ways to avoid damage as well.
I won't say that your guys will be fine without a cleric, but I will say they CAN be fine without a cleric. They'll want some form of ablative resources but it doesn't have to be HP (my guys use zombies but you can also use elementals or hirelings, or Luck rolls, or spell slots in the case of Shield spells/Mirror Image/Blink).
Honestly 5E is pretty forgiving and you can probably get away with no healer in many, many party configurations. The only case I can see NEEDING a healer is in a melee-focused party with poor AC and a straightforward approach to most combats. Even then I'd have to run done tests before concluding that HD healing was insufficient. HD healing is already better than clerical healing was in AD&D, and there are more ways to avoid damage as well.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
In 4e was Runepriest. And the cornerstone of how that character has been played (1-14 in 4e) that is trying to be preserved is a melee combatant with heavy buff/debuffs with some healing. More a force multiplier than a healer.
Concentration makes buff/debuff and melee a bit problematic, and also takes away having out multiple buffs/debuffs for the most part. The player is looking at valor bard (most likely) or paladin for class-feature buffs, spell buffs with concentration, and melee ability. Doesn't want to spend each combat as a healbot just healing, so most heals will be bonus actions with only the occasional Action used for healing.
Both starting fresh and holding out have been proposed. Most players are absolutely against ending the campaign earlier. DM says 3+ years left (more likely 4-5, we're mid way through the second act) and two players can't deal with 4e for that much longer. We play a weeknight every other week and ever encounter have been taking up a session to a session and a half.
Thanks for your feedback. It's a bit of an catch-22 in that there is no option except continue the campaign is acceptable to the group, but the player of the only leader doesn't want to be put into a sideline role where all they do is cast heals since that's just about the opposite of how they are currently being played. Initiative allowing, the 4e shifter serene blade runepriest is usually the first to engage in melee and has a very aggressive personality in combat and out. Rather tough between serene blade temp HP each round, good defenses, and longtooth shifting for regen and a resist (latter from a feat).
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Yeah, this is how we played it in 4e ... but all of that defensibility came from the runepriest. Gave out bonuses to defenses regularly either directly to PCs or in a sustainable area, provided always-on resists to every ally in aura 1, etc. Or if there weren't many combatants would give penalties to foe attacks. Also gave out buffs to allies to finish combats faster. Common encounter powers would do things like give a penalty to attacks equal to Wis (+6) + number of adjacent allies to a foe as an effect (plus do damage on hit), or close burst 5 give all allies +5 to all defenses and all enemies hit -5 to all defenses until end of turn (that was from a paragon path). Even at-wills can do things like have out -2 to hit foe defenses and +6 (Wis) AC to the next ally to hit it.
In other words, taking care of everything you just said, but without the other characters having to do anything, is what the runepriest is trying to emulate with a 5e character. A typical round action economy was:
Move to move
Minor to either sustain a buff/debuff from a previous round, or to cast a rune of mending that also grants self and all allies within 5 squares some temp HPs and either +4 damage or +1 to all defenses
Standard to attack and place a big buff or debuff out there
Always on have a runestate for either resist all to adjacent allies or +1 to hit adjacent foes.
The party also had a paladin, but took one of the other options besides lay-on-hands. Others were an elven ranger (archer), a essentials thief and a vestige pact warlock multiclassed into barbarian. Not a lot of healing elsewhere.
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
In 5e, as a cleric, this might look like..
- Bonuses to Defenses: Resistance or Bless ups saving throws, Shield of Faith ups AC. You'll have to choose between them since they're both concentration, so it pays to know your enemy - breath weapons and spells mean Bless or Resistance, while ogres and archers probably means Shield of Faith.
- Damage Reduction: Warding Bond and Protection from Energy work well here. Again, it'll pay off to know your enemy - you can't just blanket everybody.
- Penalties to the Enemy: Bane is the most obvious, but action-denial is actually super effective there, which means Command has a good role to play.
There are two big re-calibrations you might need to make.
First, that there are less "fiddly bits." 5e doesn't have a lot of options for giving -2 or -5 penalties to things - don't look for large modifiers (or multiple small modifiers that add up to something big). Instead, look for advantage, disadvantage, range, terrain features such as cover, and resistance (which is half damage from some kind of attack). From a character construction perspective, once you have one way to bestow resistance, advantage, or disadvantage on a particular check, especially at range, you've "filled" that slot, and now do all you need to do to help your party in that capacity. This isn't hard to do, and you're not going to get an abundance of options that do less than that. Once you can give an enemy disadvantage on attacks (or deprive them of actions), you don't need to worry about hindering their attack any more than that. Once you can give an ally advantage on a saving throw, you don't need to worry about buffing their saves any more than that. Do it once, and check it off your list.
Second, you won't be doing it to the whole party all at once, at least at low levels. Use shield of faith on the character with the highest AC and most HP, and have everyone else stand back and plink away at range, and you'll be set for a fight with a big critter. A fight with an army of little critters is going to need choke-points and good control magic to quell. But don't worry if your squishies need to take a hit or two - they can.
This won't be too dramatically different in 5e (except that paladin healing is really useful thanks to the lower amount of HP, and rangers can pick up healing magic, too). Keep your range as an elven ranger, your thief might want to consider the extra safety from a bow (sneak attack works at range!), your warlock/barbarian will want to be blasting from a distance, or using darkness/invisibility to close. Your party might also consider setting up ambushes and might find a big, open area with the paladin or the warlock or the priest designated as a "puller" who can grab the attention of a group of gobbies and provoke them into a chase (recommend a high Charisma for that - persuasion and intimidation and deception can all be good for luring enemies into doing something foolish).
Combat things on your terms, and think strategically, not just tactically. Ranger/Warlock/Rogue have good stealth skills - put 'em to use in avoiding combats and getting surprise!
I'm wondering if your 4e Runepriest might be better off in 5e as a War Cleric. They get some of the Paladin bonus-action buffs on their spell list, and if they focus more on buffing than debuffing they can easily get away with having Str primary and a mediocre Wis (low save DC doesn't matter if nobody makes saves against your spells). War Clerics are also strong melee combatants with heavy armor and martial weapon proficiencies, and if you sprinkle in a few Fighter levels or take feats like Martial Adept or Sentinel you can get a very defendery build.
I am playing a war cleric and they're not great. They still have a dependency on Wisdom for their extra attacks and other high DPR spells like spiritual weapon, and at higher levels you end up doing more damage with sacred flame than with your melee attacks.
I ran a few builds and decided to go Fighter/War Cleric with him instead.
I ran a few builds and decided to go Fighter/War Cleric with him instead.
Last edited:
Fanaelialae
Legend
In that case I think you'll be fine, even without the Healing Surge option. Bards are fine healers in 5e.
I wouldn't worry about the runepriest ending up a healbot. I've yet to see constant healing needed for anything. Even in the hardest fights I've thrown at my party, the druid mostly relies on Healing Word, because he likes to use damage/control spells like Moonbeam and Wall of Fire a lot. He does keep a bigger Cure prepped though, just in case, but almost never uses it.
Likewise, I think it would be wise of your runepriest to prep Mass Cure Wounds in addition to Healing Word, even though in most fights he'll never have to cast it. Valor Bard has good damage mitigation as well, since you can use Bardic Inspiration to boost your AC in response to an attack.
I see from your other post that you also have a paladin. Since all paladins get lay on hands in 5e, you should have an abundance of healing at the party's disposal.
The biggest issue is probably going to be the learning curve, on both sides of the screen. I'd recommend that the DM throw a few softballs to start, and then work up the difficulty of the fights from there. This way you guys can get used to the new ways in which your characters play, and the DM can get a read on what an encounter of a given difficulty feels like.
