Level Up (A5E) Dedicated Healer

[Vampersan]

Not entirely related to the mechanics of A5e itself, but more a question I've been pondering since O5e. Although with the introduction of the Marshal class, maybe A5e changes the equation a bit.

What is everyone's opinion on the necessity of having a "dedicated healer" in the party, be it a cleric, marshal, bard, etc? Would a party without a dedicated healer be at a significant disadvantage in A5e? Is the healer role required, or can a party reasonably adventure without having this role filled?

The reason I ask, I game with a fellow player that seems fixated on the idea that a party will perish without a cleric in the group. As a result, they seem to be putting off playing classes they're excited about in favor of filling this "role". I have argued that the role isn't necessary, as our group is experienced and our DM is not overly harsh. If anything, I would say he pulls his punches more often than not. However, my peer is adamant that a healer is necessary or we will suffer TPK.

What do you think? And what do you think A5e has added or subtracted to the game that would make a dedicated healer necessary or obsolete?

 

[Stalker0]

I don't think a "dedicated healer" is necessary, but I do think the party probably needs some combat healing for emergencies, even if it just potions.

Out of combat healing is already pretty well covered by rests, you might need to rest more without a healer but I think a healer less party can recover fine if given the time to do so.

 

[VenerableBede]

I used to think that dedicated healers were necessary, but O5e is designed in a way that it’s more useful to have one or two characters that can pop someone up after they go down (or just stabilize them quickly) and then get back to damage - a dead enemy deals less damage than a living one, after all.
I have not experienced anything on A5e to change my mind on this yet.

 

[lichmaster]

The necessity of having a dedicated healer was definitely a thing in 2e, where with natural rest you got 1 hp per level per entire day (if you were doing nothing more tiring than travelling) or 3 hp per day if you were literally spending the day in bed. Getting beaten up in 2e was really bad
In 3e natural rest changed to 1hp/level per long rest, thus significantly boosting passive healing and making healing spells a bit less necessary (also healing was much more powerful due to the various feats and prestige classes, while in 2e all you got was spells and lay on hands).
In o5e it's even less needed, as not only you can spend hit die on a short rest, but you regain all hp on a long rest and half of your hd as well. Healing is much more powerful and more classes have a bit of healing capabilities (song of rest etc).
In a5e it's even less necessary, as there are combat maneuvers that allow even pure martial classes to regain some hp on the spot.

So no, I'd argue that as the game progresses the need for a specialized healer has become more and more of a relic of the past. Of course if you want to play one you'll be able to make an exceedingly good one (cleric of life), but it's definitely not needed for the survival of the party. Resurrection spells are always a good thing to have, though

As a side note, partially OT:
In most published material, I feel in o5e there's little to no reason to spend time as downtime, due to the pace of many adventures and the lack of need for a proper time to recuperate from injuries. In 2e, with the much slower healing time and overall deadlier monsters and conditions, downtime to recuperate was definitely necessary (maybe even too much).
I still have to try a5e, but I'm hopeful that with the introduction of fatigue and strife there will be more need to rest and thus more reasons for using the downtime rules.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not entirely related to the mechanics of A5e itself, but more a question I've been pondering since O5e. Although with the introduction of the Marshal class, maybe A5e changes the equation a bit.

What is everyone's opinion on the necessity of having a "dedicated healer" in the party, be it a cleric, marshal, bard, etc? Would a party without a dedicated healer be at a significant disadvantage in A5e? Is the healer role required, or can a party reasonably adventure without having this role filled?

The reason I ask, I game with a fellow player that seems fixated on the idea that a party will perish without a cleric in the group. As a result, they seem to be putting off playing classes they're excited about in favor of filling this "role". I have argued that the role isn't necessary, as our group is experienced and our DM is not overly harsh. If anything, I would say he pulls his punches more often than not. However, my peer is adamant that a healer is necessary or we will suffer TPK.

What do you think? And what do you think A5e has added or subtracted to the game that would make a dedicated healer necessary or obsolete?

Regular 5E did not require a Cleric.

Is there anything in A5E specifically that makes you think A5E is different?

Regards,

 

[CapnZapp]

In 3e natural rest changed to 1hp/level per long rest, thus significantly boosting passive healing and making healing spells a bit less necessary (also healing was much more powerful due to the various feats and prestige classes, while in 2e all you got was spells and lay on hands).

The real game changer was the easy and cheap availability of wands; specifically wands of Cure Light Wound.

 

[lichmaster]

The real game changer was the easy and cheap availability of wands; specifically wands of Cure Light Wound.

Yes, that thing was broken AF

 

[Vampersan]

Regular 5E did not require a Cleric.

Is there anything in A5E specifically that makes you think A5E is different?

Regards,

No, not specifically. A5e does seem to up the difficulty factor by a small amount with better monster design, but like you said, O5e really didn't feel like a cleric or healer was necessary. And I feel the same applies to A5e despite it's small bump in difficulty. It's why I'm having a hard time understanding where my fellow player is coming from when they say a healer is "absolutely necessary".

The real game changer was the easy and cheap availability of wands; specifically wands of Cure Light Wound.

750gp, 50d8+250 healing ftw!

 

[noodohs]

For better or worse, O5e basically removed any need for a dedicated healer. That's not to say it isn't nice to have one, but almost every class has at least one subclass that grants some sort of healing capability. In one of my current games, we have a divine soul sorcerer and a paladin and that has been enough. Druids, rangers, and bards also get decent healing powers and even the battle smith artificer acts like a pseudo-paladin. It's a little ridiculous, IMO, but it is what it is. I haven't dived into that particular aspect of A5e, but if it follows along the same lines, yeah, there's really no reason for a dedicated healer (provided that at least someone builds in some sort of healing). If potions weren't so absurdly expensive, you could probably go without any healer at all.

 

[Stalker0]

750gp, 50d8+250 healing ftw!

It’s actually 50d8 + 50 (caster level is 1 for a 750 gp wand).

Now for real healing, try the wand of lesser vigor. 750 gp for 550 points of healing