Monstrous Healers

[Raven Crowking]

Undead creatures who can cast inflict wounds or do the reverse of lay-on-hands is great for that, because their "healing" capabilities can also be used as an offensive ability against the vast majority of PCs. The WLD has an encounter like that, and it really freaked my players out. A group of 6 (or was it 8?) undead "paladin-like, but evil!" creatures, + a bottleneck = freaked out PCs.

Probably my favourite encounter in the WLD.

 

[ThirdWizard]

It does bring up the question of why #2 isn't catered for, though. It's a whole cascading fall of tough design questions: why aren't designed to help each other? PC's are. Presumably, by that extention, classed NPC's are. If a goal of 3e was to make the monsters play nice with the PC's, why isn't that followed through to it's logical conclusion?

The most likely answer to that is probably because its more complicated to design and more complicated to use as a DM. CRs are really designed in a vacuum. Sometimes that's bad, for example the half red dragon template on a troll is more powerful than the half-dragon template on most other creatures of the same CR. So, its partially ease of use. Groups of monsters, also, don't change the CR (instead EL), so designing a monster that needs a CR X friend to be effective is inelegant and clashes with the system.

Of course, classed NPCs are the same way, and notice how they're brushed over in the rules. They're handled very poorly. Perhaps doing something like that with monsters, giving them support roles, would force WotC to acknowledge and try to fix the problems with NPCs' CRs.

It's more possible to ensure than you might think. A list of common monster groupings (something like the Organization entry, but with more emphasis on a "party" of monsters) goes a long way, as does simply mentioning "the healers are rarely encountered without big-hitting monster X" in the description. It doesn't ensure it, but neither is it assured that a party going against a golem has adamantium, and that doesn't mean that it's unfeasable to design golems with adamantine DR, does it?

That might work. It wouldn't be for everyone, but monsters presented as a "party" who are to be encountered as a group would probably work. I guess one reason they haven't done this is because it takes up more space in the book and work to design, and it goes against the more classic monster construction present throughout the history of D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

So then we come to the point, again, that if it's simpler for a DM to run a monster with integrated defenses, it'd presumably be simpler for a player to run a character with the same. Regeneration, high DR, Fast Healing, etc.

Is the cleric's role as healer such a sacred cow that effectively removing most healing/buffing magic from the game and just replacing it with better defenses and things like Regeneration would mutate the game too much?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The idea is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If monsters are only around for one encounter, the question "why is that the case?" comes up. And the only answer that seems satisfying is that "it's easier that way."

So then, if healing and buffing make the game so much more complex, why do PC's have that capability? Wouldn't the game be streamlined by giving PC's regeneration and good DR and Fast Healing (or even "reserve points")? Wouldn't effectively ditching the "healer/defender" role of the cleric in exchange for tougher PC's make the game faster, more fun, and better?

It would be simpler for PCs to do that than DMs, but it would break the suspension of disbelief. Real life non-magical humans (eg fighters) don't have fast healing or anything like it (unless you count healing to full in seven days without the aid of magic, and that's definitely not a combat thing). Plus, why doesn't Bob the evil NPC barbarian get fast healing - or does he? Well that would make encounters with classed NPCs take a lot longer. And, IMO, giving PCs regeneration or fast healing would increase complexity too much. I don't want to be counting rounds out of combat anymore than I have to.

That doesn't mean get rid of the cleric, it just means re-focus the cleric around a more punish/smite/destroy/divine angle, rather than a heal/buff/defend angle. Would there be great resistance to this throughout the community?

I don't think there would be. They did that in an MMO - I think WoW (which I've never played). They made blasting slightly more effective than healing. Then again, WoW characters might have much better defenses against damage than their AC-starved DnD characters.

Alternatively, let clerics spontaneously summon "healing celestials" or something like that, who can heal the PCs somewhat every round. That way the cleric is only giving up one action instead of several.

I think it would be great if there were healing opponents. However, healing monsters? Not so much. They're hardly monsters if they can heal, so it seems, especially for a lot of creature types. (There's one healing fiend that I know of - other fiends suck on it, draining it of hit points at an excessively slow rate. It regenerates, so it's only taking nonlethal damage). The formian was the start of a good trend; some formians can heal, but not all, because of the role splitting - something I'm a fan of. However, formian healing is too slow and inefficient to use in combat.

 

[Zander]

IMO healing is a good act. Magical healing is an ability bestowed by good deities on their clerics. Most monsters are evil or worship evil deities who don't grant this ability to their priests even if it's to help other followers. Hence, few monster healers, at least of a divine healing sort. YMMV

 

[I'm A Banana]

It would be simpler for PCs to do that than DMs, but it would break the suspension of disbelief.

Why would it break it any more than flying dragons and fireballs? Legend is full of tales of people who do not tire, who take the most severe blows as light scratches, or who have only one or two weaknesses (sounds a lot like regeneration to me). Men who heal from greivous wounds in mere moments....

It's not terribly realistic, but D&D isn't terribly realistic. If trolls can be tough enough to regenerate, if monsters can have supernaturally tough skin, why can't PC's? Perhaps only with the correct equipment, but shouldn't that magic be considered as normal as a +1 sword? A ring of fast healing, a necklace of regeneration, a shield that grants DR....

And, IMO, giving PCs regeneration or fast healing would increase complexity too much. I don't want to be counting rounds out of combat anymore than I have to.

How does "on your turn, regain x hp" make the game more complex than "I cast Aid, You now have +1 to saves XYZ and 1d8 temporary hit points that will vanish?" Or "I cast bear's endurance, you have 2 more hp per level, it applies to your max, but you will loose those tomorrow?"

IMO healing is a good act. Magical healing is an ability bestowed by good deities on their clerics. Most monsters are evil or worship evil deities who don't grant this ability to their priests even if it's to help other followers. Hence, few monster healers, at least of a divine healing sort. YMMV

Why should healing be any more good than a magic missile is evil? Healing has all sorts of wicked uses, prolonging or reviving evil beings, nurturing suffering during torment....I've always thought of the spell as a tool, rather than as a good or evil act by itself (with the obvious exceptions of [good] and [evil] spells).

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Why would it break it any more than flying dragons and fireballs?

Because dragons and fireballs don't exist but real life human soldiers do?

Legend is full of tales of people who do not tire, who take the most severe blows as light scratches, or who have only one or two weaknesses (sounds a lot like regeneration to me). Men who heal from greivous wounds in mere moments....

Those sound like special abilities you should be paying for. Not all the heroes were Achilles.

How does "on your turn, regain x hp" make the game more complex than "I cast Aid, You now have +1 to saves XYZ and 1d8 temporary hit points that will vanish?"

Aid has a duration, and you only need to apply it once, then remove it once. Fast Healing is all the time. That's every round, whether in combat or not.

Or "I cast bear's endurance, you have 2 more hp per level, it applies to your max, but you will loose those tomorrow?"

See above.

Why should healing be any more good than a magic missile is evil? Healing has all sorts of wicked uses, prolonging or reviving evil beings, nurturing suffering during torment....I've always thought of the spell as a tool, rather than as a good or evil act by itself (with the obvious exceptions of [good] and [evil] spells).

I think it depends on why you're healing them. I don't see it as "good" by itself.

 

[Voadam]

Legend is full of tales of people who do not tire, who take the most severe blows as light scratches, or who have only one or two weaknesses (sounds a lot like regeneration to me). Men who heal from greivous wounds in mere moments....

Any examples? I'm not coming up with any outside of Achilles styx dipping' immunity which has nothing to do with healing as far as I know though it could be implemented mechanically as regeneration.

I do think there should be more fast healing magics. An amulet of fast healing would be a gerat item. I hate the cleric dependence for adventuring.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Because dragons and fireballs don't exist but real life human soldiers do?

But real life human soldiers aren't D&D characters any more than you or I am, any more than real-life scholars can cast magic. D&D has never accurately modeled real anythings.

Those sound like special abilities you should be paying for. Not all the heroes were Achilles.

So they'd be magic items, then? Or 24-hour duration cleric spells? Either way, so that it's reliable than a party has them and doesn't have to worry about ending and re-starting durations? There are ways to ensure parties have access to this in the system, it just isn't integrated quite that way -- regeneration, fast healing, and DR are very valuable by the RAW, and amusingly common on monsters. If you can be sure the barbarian is going to have a +1 weapon, why shouldn't you be sure the fighter can regenerate (even if it's from an item or a spell)?

Aid has a duration, and you only need to apply it once, then remove it once. Fast Healing is all the time. That's every round, whether in combat or not.

You only apply fast healing once and you don't remove it. You just apply it every round. To one number. There's no modifiers, no hard math, no "riders" that bonus other random things, just a simple "every round, x hp comes back." Which is easy to turn into a by-minute regeneration rate outside of combat.

Having to do something every round doesn't really seem any more complex than taking an action every round. Just, as part of your round, add 1 hp (or whatever the value may be). No more complex than a five-foot step or drinking a potion -- less so because it doesn't take up an action and doesn't have preconditions and limitations and attacks of opportunity.

And it seems LESS complex than applying a different number every other round to hit points and seven other things as well. Cure x wounds, aid, bear's endurance...a duration just makes these more complex as you add and subtract various points from various parts on your character sheet more than once. Fast Healing applies instantly, does it's thing, and then goes away until your next turn.

Hence, it seems, that one of the major reasons we've been given for "no monstrous healers" is that it's too complicated to have one. So they just regenerate or gain fast healing instead. Why would it be simpler for the monsters to have it, but at the same time, more complicated for the PC's to have it? That dog won't hunt, monsignior.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Any examples? I'm not coming up with any outside of Achilles styx dipping' immunity which has nothing to do with healing as far as I know though it could be implemented mechanically as regeneration.

Achilles was a big one, though a lot of the heroic Achaeans had a near-supernatural level of perserverence, strength, or endurance. It's a standard pretty standard storytelling device to say "the great blow was turned aside," or "the blow would have felled a lesser man" or something similar. Action heroes in cinema get bones crushed and hit walls at 120 mph and roll away with scratches and bruises. I'm drawing a blank on some specific examples now, but it's still before lunch.