D&D 5E Healing Surges, Hit Dice, Martial Healing, and Overnight recovery: Which ones do you like?

[ForeverSlayer]

All I know is, I'm not going to go back to any version of the rules where my only choices are having magical healing or spending weeks in bed.

No more "somebody's gotta play the cleric." No more convenient cleric NPCs who follow the party around dispensing heals. No more Camelbaks full of healing potions and quivers full of CLW wands. I'm done with clumsy workarounds, thanks.

Actually, 3rd edition got rid of the "somebodies got to play the cleric" with the invention of domains and spontaneous healing. You could design your cleric a multitude of ways and as long as he was good or neutral, he could heal.

What 5th edition should have done was use the specialty clerics from 2nd edition, spotaneous healing from 3rd, and Turm Undead as a feat from Pathfinder.

 

[CM]

Actually, 3rd edition got rid of the "somebodies got to play the cleric" with the invention of domains and spontaneous healing. You could design your cleric...

(snip)

You might want to re-read that.

Just to expand on this, here's a rundown of the "healer" characters from all of my 4e campaigns:

A cleric of Lathander
A cleric of Torm
An artificer skinned as a cleric of Gond
A dragonborn warlord
A runepriest/warlord of Moradin
Two different greatsword-wielding psionic ardents
A half-elf bard
A multiclass invoker/cleric of Chauntea
A minotaur shaman
A dray warlord (Dark Sun)


So out of 11 healers, looks like we have/had a total of 5 of what could be built as 3e clerics.

 

[pemerton]

Actually, 3rd edition got rid of the "somebodies got to play the cleric" with the invention of domains and spontaneous healing. You could design your cleric a multitude of ways and as long as he was good or neutral, he could heal.

This makes no sense. How is the existence of clerical spontaneous healing getting rid of "somebody's got to play the cleric"?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

This makes no sense. How is the existence of clerical spontaneous healing getting rid of "somebody's got to play the cleric"?

Actually it makes plenty of sense.

The main reason some people didn't want to play a cleric was because of the heal bot. You then had to take up most of your spell slots with cure spells. Because of domains, you were able to create a multitude of different concepts including battle clerics, mage type clerics, and even rogue ones, this made people want to play clerics instead of by force. What spontaneous cure allowed you to do is fill up your slots with spells you actually wanted and you knew that you could swap them for cure spells if you had to.

Aside from that, I think it was Mearls in an article a while back talking about the 'forced to play a cleric' issue and while it is true that it would come up, I think it is highly overexaggerated. Just like there are lots of people who play melee types, and rogue types, there are lots of people who love to play support characters. They love to max out their healing and buffing abilities.

 

[Hussar]

The problem is though, FS, some groups don't want to play a cleric at all. If no one in a group wants to play a fighter then no problem. There are three other classes in 3e that can easily replace a fighter. A group can operate quite nicely with no wizard, particularly in single digit levels.

But most groups need a dedicated healer.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

The problem is though, FS, some groups don't want to play a cleric at all. If no one in a group wants to play a fighter then no problem. There are three other classes in 3e that can easily replace a fighter. A group can operate quite nicely with no wizard, particularly in single digit levels.

But most groups need a dedicated healer.

I disagree.

In my example above, a cleric can be dedicated to something else entirely while still retaining the ability to heal. Also, there are other classes such as the bard, rogue, paladin, and ranger who can be a back up healer and do just fine.

In Pathfinder, all classes can be a back up healer in one way shape or form.

 

[Minigiant]

If everyone wants to be warriors, rogues, and arcanists, your group has no healer.

Paladins and rangers are poor dedicated healers without WoCLW abuse. Bards are so so but are extremely boring as healers. So if no one picks cleric or druid, you often have to bribe or force someone to run one.

The warriors and rogues are special because their power comes in numbers. If you get your attack and AC up as another class, you can easy go without.

Removing the burden of healing for class makes required class roles less prevalent.

 

[Sunseeker]

I voted "yes" to all.

I like healing surges. It's fixed and reliable.
I like HD, it's a neat twist on an old concept, and variable. A nice replacement for healing surges that adds a little more risk to it.
I like martial healing. It's especially great in low/no magic games.
I like overnight recovery, because you are essentially waiting "overnight" no matter how long you wait. Putting someone out of the game for a long time only works if you've got spare characters.

 

[Shrander]

I disagree.

In my example above, a cleric can be dedicated to something else entirely while still retaining the ability to heal. Also, there are other classes such as the bard, rogue, paladin, and ranger who can be a back up healer and do just fine.

In Pathfinder, all classes can be a back up healer in one way shape or form.

Yes, and loading the cleric with more powers and flexibility leads to balance issues. 2E's specialty priests could be laughably overpowered, and of course 3E brought CoDzilla.

And in the end, no matter how many bells or whistles you load the cleric down with, it still ends up as "someone's gotta play the cleric."

I don't think even 4E went far enough. Yes, it did away with the required cleric, but there was still an element of "someone's gotta play the leader." (Which is not to say you can't make a leader-less party work in 4E, but it requires care and forethought, just as a party without a dedicated healer does in earlier editions.)

If Next provided a framework where a party without a dedicated healer can work just as easily as a party with one, without obligating the DM to hand out tons of wands, potions, or other substitutes, that would be extremely positive for me. But I'm not holding out much hope.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Yes, and loading the cleric with more powers and flexibility leads to balance issues. 2E's specialty priests could be laughably overpowered, and of course 3E brought CoDzilla.

And in the end, no matter how many bells or whistles you load the cleric down with, it still ends up as "someone's gotta play the cleric."

I don't think even 4E went far enough. Yes, it did away with the required cleric, but there was still an element of "someone's gotta play the leader." (Which is not to say you can't make a leader-less party work in 4E, but it requires care and forethought, just as a party without a dedicated healer does in earlier editions.)

If Next provided a framework where a party without a dedicated healer can work just as easily as a party with one, without obligating the DM to hand out tons of wands, potions, or other substitutes, that would be extremely positive for me. But I'm not holding out much hope.

I've already shown that nobody had to play the cleric.

Also, it's not a chore for all those who want to play it.