Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celtavian" data-source="post: 6667534" data-attributes="member: 5834">We did not scrap clerics and don't plan to. Sometimes they are fun to play.I have found that in 5E you don't need a cleric healer. We're running a group with a druid and bard working together as healer and it is fine. Even groups with a solo cleric don't do better. Cleric has very little advantage healing in 5E other than a life cleric. Pointless to play them as a pure healer because it will hurt the group given the loss of damage and offensive/utility actions.A bard, druid, or cleric should be able to adequately fill the healer role in a 5E group. Players should be buying healing potions and doing out of combat healing with short rests to get full up. Spending spell slots on heal spells is often an inefficient use of spell power that leads to longer fights with more damage done by the monsters because they are killed slower. Healing often barely offsets a single attack by a relatively weak monster. Offensive spells often do more damage than healing spells. It is in your best interest to go offense with the healer killing the damage dealing enemy as fast as possible rather than trying to heal through the damage. Combat healing in 5E is extremely inefficient until mass cure wounds or the heal spell. Even then it might still be better to go offense. Druids can &quot;pre-heal&quot; using polymorph or summon spells. That is often better because it allows offense as well.5E has a very different healing paradigm. My group has not fully realized this yet and becomes uncomfortable when I do not heal as I would in Pathfinder/3E. I don't plan to adjust how I do things. The math is not in favor of combat healing. It is not an optimal use of spell power. I would be slowing down our advancement using heal spells in all by the most dire of circumstances.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celtavian, post: 6667534, member: 5834"] We did not scrap clerics and don't plan to. Sometimes they are fun to play. I have found that in 5E you don't need a cleric healer. We're running a group with a druid and bard working together as healer and it is fine. Even groups with a solo cleric don't do better. Cleric has very little advantage healing in 5E other than a life cleric. Pointless to play them as a pure healer because it will hurt the group given the loss of damage and offensive/utility actions. A bard, druid, or cleric should be able to adequately fill the healer role in a 5E group. Players should be buying healing potions and doing out of combat healing with short rests to get full up. Spending spell slots on heal spells is often an inefficient use of spell power that leads to longer fights with more damage done by the monsters because they are killed slower. Healing often barely offsets a single attack by a relatively weak monster. Offensive spells often do more damage than healing spells. It is in your best interest to go offense with the healer killing the damage dealing enemy as fast as possible rather than trying to heal through the damage. Combat healing in 5E is extremely inefficient until [I]mass cure wounds[/I] or the [I]heal[/I] spell. Even then it might still be better to go offense. Druids can "pre-heal" using polymorph or summon spells. That is often better because it allows offense as well. 5E has a very different healing paradigm. My group has not fully realized this yet and becomes uncomfortable when I do not heal as I would in [I]Pathfinder[/I]/3E. I don't plan to adjust how I do things. The math is not in favor of combat healing. It is not an optimal use of spell power. I would be slowing down our advancement using heal spells in all by the most dire of circumstances. [/QUOTE]

Verification