D&D 5E High level 5e without healing

[Blue]

A long running (started 2010) 4e game I'm in is thinking about switching to 5e. Based on the campaign, I expect us to go all the way up to 20th, and we're converting over at 10th, probably taking 3+ more years so we'll be spending lots of time at all of those levels.

It would be specifically translating over the characters we have, and it looks we will have little in-combat healing except Healing Word, which doesn't look like all that much at higher levels.

So, in general how does 5e run at high levels with mostly out-of-combat healing by HD and little in-combat? I'm not looking for a "well, this build or this item can get around it" or "the DM can do this different or use this optional rule". Just how well does high level play without a healer work?

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[malph]

Generally speaking:


While 5e can be played effectively without a primary healer (i.e. cleric), you'll generally need someone who has a couple heals to throw around in combat (such as a Ranger). Otherwise, nearly every "oh sh*t" moment will result in a TPK.

Of course, you could play 5e effectively without in-combat healing if the DM adjusts encounters (making them easier). It'll take some trial and error to find out how to do this right, and my feeling is it would be difficult to do well. IMHO, the CR ratings and DMG guide for encounter difficulty are assuming you have at least some basic level of in-combat healing options.

 

[DaveDash]

You don't need a dedicated Cleric, there are a lot of classes that can heal.

It will be hard however without any in combat healing, i.e some harder fights like against a Dragon with their breath weapons will be much harder without healing. Two rounds of breath and you're going to be hurting.
I know my group (now level 15) has had to use a Heal spell a couple of times or the Paladins lay on hands, there's also been a couple of times they've needed to revive a downed party member as well, or that party member would be dead now.

 

[Aimian_Silverflash]

Slightly off-topic, but when you do the pepsi challenge between the healing classes, the only one that's a dedicated healer is a cleric with Life domain. All the others are mostly equal, other than maybe the paladin.

In fact, a lore bard and either flavor of druid are probably better healers than any non-life-domain cleric, because bards can mitigate incoming damage with Cutting Words, Land Druids have Natural Recovery for more healing spells available, and Moon druids heal themselves when they wild shape.

Just FYI.

 

[Aimian_Silverflash]

That said, you definitely need one character to take on the healing roll. That person always keeps a couple spells in reserve if things go south. But the roll definitely doesn't have to be a Life cleric. It could be any of these other classes with both Cure Wounds and Healing Word.

Oh, and I'm thinking if your only healer is a paladin, you might have a bad day.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You'll want to play defensively.

Use and abuse the Dodge action. Use stealth, invisibility, and protective spells (abjurations). Get everyone a robust AC. Opt for ranged attacks where possible. Fight on your terms, not on theirs.

Healing is only one way to get "extra hits" - defensive tactics and clever strategy can also give this to you. It's just less reliable, and it makes certain approaches (like "kick in the door and deal with the consequences later!") less viable...or, rather, more likely to result in deaths.

 

[DaveDash]

That said, you definitely need one character to take on the healing roll. That person always keeps a couple spells in reserve if things go south. But the roll definitely doesn't have to be a Life cleric. It could be any of these other classes with both Cure Wounds and Healing Word.

Oh, and I'm thinking if your only healer is a paladin, you might have a bad day.

Paladin's are fine at healing. They have lots of "healing power" comparative to all other classes except a Life Cleric, but they're action economy poor.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It would be specifically translating over the characters we have, and it looks we will have little in-combat healing except Healing Word, which doesn't look like all that much at higher levels.

It does scale with the level of the slot you use, and it can stand up a dropped character - which is better than waiting a d4 hours for them to wake up on their own.

What is the class(es) of your leader character(s). If it's anything but Warlord (well or Shaman or Ardent, obviously) you should be fine - as far as healing goes. As far as converting everyone else, it depends on the classes. 5e handles some 5e classes well enough (especially if you like having far more dailies, as a caster - or none at all, as a Slayer/Knight/Thief) others less so and some, of course, not at all.

If you're sick of 4e, I'd say just start a new campaign with 5e. If you're enjoying the campaign as it stands now, I'd say finish it out in 4e. That's what my group did when 4e came out: we finished up or 3.5 campaigns before trying out the new system.

Converting a successful old campaign is a good way to make a new system look bad. Give 5e a shot all on its own, its way.

So, in general how does 5e run at high levels with mostly out-of-combat healing by HD and little in-combat? I'm not looking for a "well, this build or this item can get around it" or "the DM can do this different or use this optional rule".

Given those parameters: pretty badly. In-combat healing is critical to get dropped characters back up. Not just back up into the fight, but, back up and able to spend their HD at the next 1hr 'short' rest. No insta-healing means you have to stabilize them and wait a d4 hours for them to wake up, then another hour so they can spend HD. And, HD represent a fraction of the healing resources that surges did in 4e. Hour-long short rests can be hard to squeeze into a lot of stories, pacing-wise, too.

But, those are hardly fair parameters. 5e is /meant/ to be extensively fiddled with by the DM to get what you want out of it. So, you can increase the number of HD, let anyone use some HD in combat 1/encounter, reduce short rests to 5min, and so forth...

 

[Wolfskin]

I'd go with the Healing Surges optional rule in the DMG, plus having someone take the Healer feat. That will allow for some combat healing.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It would be specifically translating over the characters we have, and it looks we will have little in-combat healing except Healing Word, which doesn't look like all that much at higher levels.

Just out of curiosity, what class has access to Healing Word but not other healing spells?

That aside, I suspect it would work. I've run a few sessions with just a rogue and one or two warriors, and they did fine without healing (aside from the occasional healing potion).

I would be careful of deadly encounters with this setup. While that party could handle encounters that were in the shallow end of deadly, I've reserved highly deadly encounters for times when they had their druid with them. But there's usually an adjustment period with any new system, so your DM should be able to feel out what you guys can handle given a little time and experimentation.

Since you're already converting from 4th, why not use the Healing Surges options (DMG 266)? That, by itself, ought to make up for a fair portion of any healing you might lack.