D&D 5E Excluding Healing Spirit, is 5e Healing too weak?

[Tony Vargas]

I like that in 5e you don't need a cleric. It's nice to have, but it's not needed. If no one wants to play a cleric, it's aok! You can be the healer by

• taking the feat
• being a bard
• being a druid
• being a paladin
• being a sorcerer (with the right subclass)
• being a warlock (with the right pact)

So, ever since 2e, when the Druid started getting Cure..Wounds spells at the same levels as the Cleric, "you need a 'Cleric' in D&D" has meant "you need a caster with access to healing spells." Which, all those but the first, are.

5E healing isn't too weak, because every game has the easiest method for extensive healing-- adding a 5th PC.

And if you want healing to be overpowered? You have 6 PCs. Heaven forbid you play at a table with 7 or more PCs, ...

You have read the section of the DMG on designing encounters, no?

At 1st level a Cure Wounds is 1d8+Mod HP in healing... while adding a 5th PC gives you 10-15 of additional hit points for monsters to fight through.

Not technically untrue, but you can't use a first level spell slot to summon a 5th PC.

No - you're assuming two things that are far from universally true:
that a fully healed character's hit points aren't sufficient to last through the fight
that a character's action is better spent on healing than killing

That second's kinda a 'yes' answer to the original question: asserting that healing is too weak. If every character's action is always better spent doing damage to the enemy rather than healing themselves or an ally, then yeah, healing would have to much 'stronger' to make it a meaningful or even viable option.

(The first, OTOH, gets back to combats being 'too easy...')

So, yeah, it's an assumption that, either due to the DM dialing combats way up, or taking the - seemingly almost unprecedented - option of actually running 6-8 encounters between long rests, combats are actually challenging, and engaging in fierce battles with huge monsters could, in fact, get someone killed. At least, some of the time. A stretch, I know.

But, what you're assuming in saying you needn't "depend on a healer in combat" in 5e, is that both those things are absolutely never true, not for any character in any group in any circumstance at any table where D&D is played, anywhere in the world, ever.

Because the reality of it is really pretty simple - healers, characters who can provide in-combat healing, typically through spellcasting, are what you depend on in 5e. Magic items aren't assumed and you can't depend on the DM to drop specific numbers of them nor prescribed wealth/level to buy them with, and HD, the main non-healer source of healing, simply can't be accessed in combat.

the best healing is by giving the monsters the "dead" condition, which reduces their damage output to zero.

Yeah, that one goes way back, based on the abstract way hps work, and is quite naïve, really. Simple, true in the most basic sense, but first reduces the challenge of combat to a simple damage-trading game, the DPR-only race to 0 hps.

If you're wondering why the game seem 'too easy' or even 'boring,' that is why.

A much more efficient way to "heal" is by rotating your party members, forcing the monsters to spread out their damage over every party member.

Y'always fight in doorways?
But, seriously, that's just a variation on whack-a-mole. Get the enemy to 'waste' damage. In this case, by preventing the most obvious and basic (and easy to implement) tactic under the abstraction of hps: focus fire.

Do note I am speaking specifically of 5E.

This is a 5e thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The problem with 5e healing is that HD are terrible replacements for healing surges.

For those not in the know, in 4e edition, in addition to their actual HP, PCs had a number of ‘Healing Surges’ that would fuel healing and inform how much a certain effect would help you recover. Each Healing Surge had a value equal to a ¼ of your max HP. The Cleric sends a Healing Word your way? You can spend a Healing Surge and you regain its value in HP and a bonus. Take a potion? It lets you spend a healing surge plus a small bonus. Better potion? TWO Healing Surges. Take a rest? Spend Healing Surges to recover their value in HP.

This had a number of advantages:

It meant that healing wasn’t just spending the healer’s resources, it also spent resources from the person receiving that healing. It, in turn, put a harder limit on the amount of healing that could be spent out during the day. You could have a full team of classes capable of healing and a Handy Haversack of healing potion and you would still not be able to go on forever. This had the bonus that strong healing effects just depleted those ressources fasters, being a trade off.

It’s a system that could easily have been adapted to make the game deadlier without making days shorter. Say you have a character with 20 HP and 6 HS, each worth 5 HP. That means that in the course of a day the PC in question can take 50 points of damage, BUT it means that a monsters only need to inflict 20 HP worth of damage to bring that character down. Additionally, PC would sometimes not spend a surge if it meant ‘overhealing’ and wasting part of it. You’d end up in a lot of situations with PCs not fully healed, so that danger could be greater. By playing around with the max HP and number of surges of PCs, you could dial a certain level of danger of your choosing.

And finally, it gave you a resource you could take away and have an actual impact for non-combat situation. Certain strenuous activities could cost healing surges, certain dangerous environment and traps could just skip the HP damage and just cost you a healing surge (basically, assumes you took damage and then spent a surge to avoid it). It basically gave you a measure of your PC’s exhaustion.

Heck, they could have made rituals cost healing surges, making them less ‘free’.

Healing Surges were brilliant and HD are an anemic attempt at the same mechanic with a legacy name, but they don’t actually do everything Surges could do and their potency is pathetic as a result. Plus you have to ROLL to use them? Bleh.

So, there was a lot to like about 4e healing surges, but they had a big downside to me (I did play a campaign or two).

Each surge gave you back 1/4 of your hp or more, and you had surges equal to your level. And you could spend them on a short rest, which was 5 minutes.

This would mean that an 8th level character actually tends to have three times the hp you think. So (if I remember my math right) an 8th level fighter didn't have 120 hp, they effectively had 360. Which is a lot to chewv through and only got worse.


Talking about healing over breaks, one thing I've done which feels effective is say that players do not regain full hp on a long rest. Instead they spend HD as normal, recovering half their HD either before or after the rest.

So, you can really tell when they've had a few hard days in a row, because they tend to be almost out of HD and rarely at full health. Seems to work really well for us, but low levels are even scarier than normal.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You have read the section of the DMG on designing encounters, no?

Yeah, and they work just fine for parties of 4 PCs using the Basic Rules.

But add additional PCs or other classes that start to synergize with each other and those encounter rules go out the window.

 

[Undrave]

So, there was a lot to like about 4e healing surges, but they had a big downside to me (I did play a campaign or two).

Each surge gave you back 1/4 of your hp or more, and you had surges equal to your level. And you could spend them on a short rest, which was 5 minutes.

This would mean that an 8th level character actually tends to have three times the hp you think. So (if I remember my math right) an 8th level fighter didn't have 120 hp, they effectively had 360. Which is a lot to chewv through and only got worse.


Talking about healing over breaks, one thing I've done which feels effective is say that players do not regain full hp on a long rest. Instead they spend HD as normal, recovering half their HD either before or after the rest.

So, you can really tell when they've had a few hard days in a row, because they tend to be almost out of HD and rarely at full health. Seems to work really well for us, but low levels are even scarier than normal.

Yeah you can argue the 4e incarnation is a bit too much, but I think the mechanic in the abstract could easily have been adjusted for a more gritty version, like your own.

I just feel that the HDs in 5e just aren't as... involved in other aspect of the rules as healing surges were. Like, we got no way to lose them and there's no feat to improve them or anything. They're just there for one thing and that's it.

And if you multi class with a class that has different hit die it just gets to be a pain to track how many of each die you have. If you just get to track one quarter of your HP then your healing surge will average out if you go from a high HP dice class to a low HP dice class ya know?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Each surge gave you back 1/4 of your hp or more, and you had surges equal to your level.

Woah, no. The number of surges was based on class, as few as 6, as many as 10 or so. Your CON mod added to the number of surges. Not your level, which added to your hps, and thereby surge value.

The 1/4 'or more' came from leader-role class's powers (significant - optimized could double your surge at high levels), or (much smaller bonuses) feats, racial perk, or item. So, about 1/4 for most purposes - particularly between-combat healing.

This would mean that a ...character actually tends to have three times the hp you think. (if I remember my math right)

Not at all, really. Surges were a hit-point-restoring resource, not hit points. A character with 3x the hit points would be a very different animal from a character with 8 surges. In any given combat, you could access 1 surge via Second Wind (a standard action, so not taken lightly), and the party's support 'leader role' character could trigger 2 or more, depending on level & build choices, in support of the whole party. So even a 1st combat of the day could be quite a challenge, even drop PCs, while still leaving them able to recover and be ready for the next challenge.

The main effect of surges was not 'more hps' but silo'ing hit point recovery as a daily resource from attack/defenses/utilities as daily resources, and limiting access to that resource, both per-encounter, and per day. It not only made classes with surge-triggers more interesting to play than the old (and new again) Band-aid Cleric without any risk of them turning into CoDzilla, it removed the kinds of systematic abuses of low-cost healing (wands/potions) we saw it 3e, as well.

One of the reasons the 5MWD wasn't the issue in 4e it was in other editions, 5e especially, and why 3-5 encounters/day was a pretty good target (though you could go much higher), vs 5e's needing to stick to 6-8 to remain at all functional in terms of both encounter & class balance.

Talking about healing over breaks, one thing I've done which feels effective is say that players do not regain full hp on a long rest. Instead they spend HD as normal, recovering half their HD either before or after the rest.

I've seen similar variations. It's a bit of gratuitous dice-rolling & accounting, but some players are into that sort of thing, getting a sense of verisimilitude from the simulation-like detail of the exercise.

So, you can really tell when they've had a few hard days in a row, because they tend to be almost out of HD and rarely at full health.

Nod. HD are recovered slower than hps, anyway, so that tendency is already there, your variant would make it more prominent. It'd also tend to shorten the 'work day' that the party could handle, which would result in the party using more non-hp resources (like spell slots) in each encounter, increasing the relative importance of limited resources vs at-will.

 

[NotAYakk]

Actually, the 1/2 HD rolling in combat -- we could call it a "recovery". And every class gets 1 recovery per short rest, which can only be triggered when they gain HP for some purpose.

That gives you more in-combat healing 1/encounter. Fighters can self-trigger it via second wind. Healers can trigger it in others. And it comes to about 1/4 of your max HP.

 

[CapnZapp]

You do have to rely on healers in combat, as HD are only useable out of combat, when you have a full hour to devote to a short rest.

No - you're assuming two things that are far from universally true:

• that a fully healed character's hit points aren't sufficient to last through the fight
• that a character's action is better spent on healing than killing

That second's kinda a 'yes' answer to the original question: asserting that healing is too weak. If every character's action is always better spent doing damage to the enemy rather than healing themselves or an ally, then yeah, healing would have to much 'stronger' to make it a meaningful or even viable option.

(The first, OTOH, gets back to combats being 'too easy...')

So, yeah, it's an assumption that, either due to the DM dialing combats way up, or taking the - seemingly almost unprecedented - option of actually running 6-8 encounters between long rests, combats are actually challenging, and engaging in fierce battles with huge monsters could, in fact, get someone killed. At least, some of the time. A stretch, I know.

But, what you're assuming in saying you needn't "depend on a healer in combat" in 5e, is that both those things are absolutely never true, not for any character in any group in any circumstance at any table where D&D is played, anywhere in the world, ever.

Because the reality of it is really pretty simple - healers, characters who can provide in-combat healing, typically through spellcasting, are what you depend on in 5e. Magic items aren't assumed and you can't depend on the DM to drop specific numbers of them nor prescribed wealth/level to buy them with, and HD, the main non-healer source of healing, simply can't be accessed in combat.

(Please have pity on us mobile posters and stop with the multiquoting, Tony. Had to post from desktop just to untangle your post.)

Healing is not "too" weak. It's weak - but as a feature and not a bug. You can have a game where monsters hit so hard and so often that in-combat healing is a must, and thus said healing must be sufficiently potent to be up to that task. 5E was quite intentionally created as a different game.

In other words, healing is weak enough that every party isn't compelled to have a healer. And the monsters aren't strong enough to turn the lack of in-combat healing into a Total Party Kill.

That said, it isn't as black and white as you try to make my argument sound like. Playing an in-combat healer isn't an obvious bad choice. What I'm saying is it is a choice, as opposed to games where you absolutely must have one. (The videogame World of Warcraft is the perfect example)

You then argue that a) the choice is between in-combat healers and magic items, and b) because magic items aren't a given, thus follows c) you do rely on in-combat healing.

Nothing of the sort. I am arguing that you don't need to rely on an in-combat healer. I am not arguing you need healing. Only in-combat healing.

You can manage with Inspired Leader and Healer feats. Or generous amounts of potions. Or other solutions - plenty of downtime maybe. I know this from experience. A Cleric is better - not because he uses his precious actions in combat to heal you, but because out-of-combat healing is greatly accelerated.

He can choose to heal you in combat. That would be an appreciated service. But the game doesn't depend on it. He would be equally appreciated if he used his actions to kill foes (soaked hits, and so on) first and foremost, and only used healing spells in emergencies, and after combat when all other venues for healing are expended.

I hope you see I am not trying to invalidate your entire line of reasoning, Tony.

Only the part where you seem to assume someone must take the role of combat healer.

In 5E, that is simply not true if you play anywhere close to the official company line.

It is if you have a killer DM, or play with uncoordinated newbies, you might feel the feature turning to a bug, since outside of maybe Life Cleric, dedicating yourself to in-game healing brings serious performance issues. But I wager this isn't a practical issue for most.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I'm curious: what was the high (or low) point for the "required dedicated healer"? In other words, when was it most vital for the party to have someone who was all heals, all the time? I'm guessing 3.X, but would like to hear from others who have more experience with earlier editions.

The thing to keep in mind is that, prior to 3E, there were no guidelines for expected encounter rates. You could get along just fine without any magical healing in 2E if you only got into one fight per week, and if that fight didn't consistently cause every character to take more than 7 damage. It's fine if the fighter takes 20 damage one week, and then nothing the next week, as long as the over-all rate of healing for the party keeps pace with the rate of taking damage. Ideally, your goal as an adventurer is to control all of the variables, and not take any damage. Hit Points exist as your margin of error.

Third Edition threw that logic out the window, by suggesting that you should get into X number of encounters every day, of Y relative challenge rating. In order to maintain that pace, against defined foes, magical healing was pretty much necessary.

 

[CapnZapp]

Third Edition threw that logic out the window, by suggesting that you should get into X number of encounters every day, of Y relative challenge rating. In order to maintain that pace, against defined foes, magical healing was pretty much necessary.

Also magic healing was so cheap and plentiful the impatience to get back into the fray soon meant you adventure on a pace you no longer can sustain with mundane rest.

Just to say it's not as clear-cut as "it's the fault of rule X". Look at it more as a chicken-and-egg problem.

 

[CapnZapp]

So, there was a lot to like about 4e healing surges, but they had a big downside to me (I did play a campaign or two).

The biggest downside for me, by far, was how they were tied to individual characters.

Play an assassin skulking in the shadows? Or a master bowman, picking off foes from afar? Or a spellcaster with crappy AC?

Too bad - the party's most valuable resource is healing surges, and if you don't step forward and accept your fair share of incoming damage, your healing surges would go unused, and you can't afford that kind of waste.

Uncoupling healing from surges, so that the fighter can drink every Healing Potion there is, with the Rogue, Ranger and Wizard drinking none, was among the best decisions 5E took.