D&D 5E Increased in-combat healing

[Psikerlord#]

Low Fantasy Gaming fixed the whack-a-mole issue by making cure spells take 1d3 minutes to work if the recipient is at zero hp. Suddenly mid combat healing becomes very important.

 

[Leatherhead]

I solved the problem of whack-a-mole by adding potential lingering injuries whenever a player dropped to 0 hp.

But then again, I hate combat healing in general, and imagine "proactive healing" would be something akin to temporary hps. The nature of how HP works means any kind of healing is inherently reactive.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I also enjoy combat more when healing can't outheal the damage. I like how it's strongly encouraged to heal between battles instead.

 

[Starfox]

Also, if as a deity, I caught my cleric of life and healing spending so much time in melee combat that he didn't have time to heal his comrades before they started making death-saves...I'd have to revoke his powers for a while.

I guess GM actions like this is why divine classes are so unpopular.

Also, by removing his powers, he'll be fighting more - it is after all he can do without powers.

 

[CapnZapp]

In my experience 5th edition is already so easy, that in-combat healing simply isn't necessary.

The real challenge is somehow getting the party to have several encounters in the day, since D&D is also incredibly generous with ways to safely rest even in hostile territory.

That said, I wish you luck in your exploration of this thread's premise.

 

[Ricochet]

We do the "drop below negative and you get a level of exhaustion" house rule. Has really lessened the yoyo-effect on combat, and healing preferably needs to be done before someone drops.

 

[GameOgre]

It seems like in 90% of D&D games the cleric or healer is someone forced to play that role. In general for most people, healing isn't fun. Sitting around waiting for your turn of D&D so that you can cast heal on a friend is ........a very acquired taste. Either your the type of person that likes doing that(Rare) or you don't.

Heck, I have known entire groups that force the DM to play a cleric npc or they don't want to play D&D.

So why anyone would want to make it less attractive to be a healer......I have no friggin clue about.

What I would love to see is rule options for running a game without a cleric.

For those saying you don't need one....play any of the adventure paths put out so far with no healer and see how it goes.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It seems like in 90% of D&D games the cleric or healer is someone forced to play that role. In general for most people, healing isn't fun. Sitting around waiting for your turn of D&D so that you can cast heal on a friend is ........a very acquired taste. Either your the type of person that likes doing that(Rare) or you don't.

Heck, I have known entire groups that force the DM to play a cleric npc or they don't want to play D&D.

So why anyone would want to make it less attractive to be a healer......I have no friggin clue about.

What I would love to see is rule options for running a game without a cleric.

For those saying you don't need one....play any of the adventure paths put out so far with no healer and see how it goes.

I'd say less than 50% myself. Healing in D&D isn't like an MMO where the healer has to focus on throwing heals continuously to keep everyone's HP up. If you're spending most of your turns doing nothing but healing, that is extremely unusual for 5e.
5e generally only requires the occasional heal, so it is important to be able to do something else constructive. Fighting in melee or throwing offensive spells with the ability to save your party member from dying in a pinch has a fair amount of appeal in my experience. Neither is healing restricted to Clerics. Bards, Druids, etc. I was the main healer and support of the group in Curse of Strahd as a Wizard.

There are already options for running a game without a healer (I'm assuming you meant healer rather than cleric). Healing potions, the healer feat, short-rest HP recovery through spending HD and long-rest full HP recovery etc.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It seems like in 90% of D&D games the cleric or healer is someone forced to play that role. In general for most people, healing isn't fun. Sitting around waiting for your turn of D&D so that you can cast heal on a friend is ........a very acquired taste. Either your the type of person that likes doing that(Rare) or you don't.

Heck, I have known entire groups that force the DM to play a cleric npc or they don't want to play D&D.

So why anyone would want to make it less attractive to be a healer......I have no friggin clue about.

What I would love to see is rule options for running a game without a cleric.

For those saying you don't need one....play any of the adventure paths put out so far with no healer and see how it goes.

That was my experience with earlier editions, but not with 5e, so I wonder how much of that is a mentality based on outdated experience. Even without using optional rules, I've found that Hit Dice and healing potions can pull the party through most scenarios. Admittedly, there are going to be times you wish you had a cleric if you don't have one, but the same could be said of most of the classes.

IME, prior to 11th level you really don't need a healer (although they are nice to have for the occasional status effect, like diseases, as well as for effortlessly recovering from getting knocked to zero hp). From 11th onward there will definitely be scenarios when having Heal available could make the difference between success and defeat, but the same can be said for many spells (ie, Forcecage).

I say this having run a campaign to 19th level for a party which consisted of a fighter (battlemaster), a monk (shadow), a rogue (assassin?), and a pair of NPC warrior-types. Neither the Leadership or the Healer feat was used. I created encounters by the book (leaning a bit more towards fewer but deadlier difficulty encounters, which should not have favored this party makeup). Somewhere around 16th or 17th level they started really red-lining on some of the tougher fights so I offered them an NPC cleric, who they accepted into the party. She did make the fights somewhat easier, but IMO they would have been winnable without her, just riskier.

They simply had good teamwork. If someone was getting hammered on, they didn't hesitate to have that character fall back and have someone step in to cover him. They also made good use of Dodge, and divide-and-conquer tactics. The fighter had excellent lock down thanks to the Sentinal feat and maneuvers, and the monk's Stunning Blow frequently played a pivotal role in their victories.

I'm certainly not saying that having a healer is pointless, but IME "healers" spend the majority of their time in 5e doing something other than healing. I've never seen a healer in 5e who does nothing but spam healing spells every round. Even when there's been a cleric in the party, they've typically buffed the party (Bless) and/or pushed the fight to completion using spells like spiritual weapon and spirit guardians.

 

[GameOgre]

I'd say less than 50% myself. Healing in D&D isn't like an MMO where the healer has to focus on throwing heals continuously to keep everyone's HP up. If you're spending most of your turns doing nothing but healing, that is extremely unusual for 5e.
5e generally only requires the occasional heal, so it is important to be able to do something else constructive. Fighting in melee or throwing offensive spells with the ability to save your party member from dying in a pinch has a fair amount of appeal in my experience. Neither is healing restricted to Clerics. Bards, Druids, etc. I was the main healer and support of the group in Curse of Strahd as a Wizard.

There are already options for running a game without a healer (I'm assuming you meant healer rather than cleric). Healing potions, the healer feat, short-rest HP recovery through spending HD and long-rest full HP recovery etc.

In Horde of the Dragon Queen we had a pc death and the new character brought in was a full defensive tank and without healing would have died before ever even getting to go on his turn(he rolled badly and was last).

His AC was rocking, he had plenty of hit points and was a all around well built tank character and would have died on his first round of combat without ever having gotten a chance to swing if the party cleric had not healed him. It was a VERY hard encounter.

Playing the game with no healer is not possible at all in any way unless you have a DM that lets you play that way. You know, balanced encounters maybe a little on the easy side.

If you have a DM that likes to Challenge a party of well built combat oriented characters and really make them sweat it out, You will have a dedicated healer or die. And that healer will be spending his combats casting healing spells not wading into melee or helping down foes with his offensive abilities. See the DM already has a full party of damage dealers planned for. There will be too many enemies or too powerful enemies for the party to defeat without taking heavy damages....after all the DM wants the party to feel challenged and sweat some.

I know I read all the time on these boards that healers should not heal in combat but that is not my experience at all.

The 15 or so DM's I deal with in this area do not play their games that way.

We don't have 6-8 encounters per day, we don't have balanced encounters, we have awesome fun BUT a healer is mandatory.