D&D 5E On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[Mouseferatu]

I've gotta go with the Capn on this one. I really don't think the lack of other "basic four" abilities compares to the lack of healing, in terms of impact on the campaign.

If you lack a rogue, you can have other people with the right skills; you can open locks and detect traps with magic. If you lack a frontline fighter, well, the cleric and the rogue won't be as efficient, but they can fill in in a pinch. If you lack an arcanist, there's be a lot of fights and situations that are much harder, but still quite doable. (My current 5E group is a druid, a fighter, a paladin, and a cleric. They could really have used a mage a time or two, but it was never the difference between success and failure.)

But a healer? That's not something you can "fudge" with any degree of helpfulness. Lack any of the other classes, certain situations get tougher; but lack a healer, and the entire game can grind to a near halt as people drop every other combat, and as the party decides to retreat and wait for the next day after every two or three encounters.

Hit dice along are a fair minimum for a gritty campaign, but for anything heroic? There really does need to be a middle ground between "just HD" and "must have healbot."

Now, I happen to feel the game does give a sufficiency of options. Go for the quick healing/recover options, and/or include a "secondary healer" (like a paladin) plus lots of potions or wands. But however it's handled, I firmly believe the game should still be playable--and still fun, even if it's a bit harder in some respects--without requiring a party to have any particular niche filled.

 

[CapnZapp]

How is this different than someone being forced to play a Thief, or a Fighter, or a Wizard? Most well-rounded parties usually have at least one of each of these.

For starters, my "problem" is that nobody wants to play the healer specifically and only. Nobody wants to spend their rounds buffing others and healing their injuries.

OTOH, nobody has any problems playing the death-dealing Fighters, Rogues or Wizards. In fact, everyone loves 'em

But perhaps less flippantly, you're mixing up classes with roles.

A Fighter is a class. But the roles behind the game are, traditionally:

Damage Soak

Damage Deal

Damage Heal

You actually don't have to play a Fighter, since any number of classes can fulfil the roles of Soak and Deal.

In the same way, you don't have to play a Cleric, since you can also play a Bard or Druid healbot.

But it is the role of healer I do not want to force upon anyone in my party.

Playing a Cleric - freed from any expectations on providing basic healing - is on the other hand fine. In fact, more than fine.

I would love to play a Cleric in a game where say a NPC Cleric assumes healbot responsibilities.

But I don't want to force a NPC upon my group. I would far prefer optional rules to make natural healing cover this basic need.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I am asking for optional rules that only come into effect for groups where nobody happens to want to play the healer just this once.

Players don't make decisions in a vacuum, though. If my wanting to play a healbot will influence how everyone heals naturally, then maybe I'll choose to not play that character since it will just drag everyone down.

(Similarly, if nobody wants to play a trap-finder person, should the DM not include traps? Because if that's the case, then choosing to play someone who is good at traps actually increases the likelihood of bad stuff happening from traps.)

 

[ccooke]

For starters, my "problem" is that nobody wants to play the healer specifically and only. Nobody wants to spend their rounds buffing others and healing their injuries.

OTOH, nobody has any problems playing the death-dealing Fighters, Rogues or Wizards. In fact, everyone loves 'em

But perhaps less flippantly, you're mixing up classes with roles.

A Fighter is a class. But the roles behind the game are, traditionally:

Damage Soak

Damage Deal

Damage Heal

You actually don't have to play a Fighter, since any number of classes can fulfil the roles of Soak and Deal.

In the same way, you don't have to play a Cleric, since you can also play a Bard or Druid healbot.

But it is the role of healer I do not want to force upon anyone in my party.

Playing a Cleric - freed from any expectations on providing basic healing - is on the other hand fine. In fact, more than fine.

I would love to play a Cleric in a game where say a NPC Cleric assumes healbot responsibilities.

But I don't want to force a NPC upon my group. I would far prefer optional rules to make natural healing cover this basic need.

Have you seen the Healing Surge rules in the DMG yet? They might provide the option you're looking for

 

[steenan]

Players don't make decisions in a vacuum, though. If my wanting to play a healbot will influence how everyone heals naturally, then maybe I'll choose to not play that character since it will just drag everyone down.

(Similarly, if nobody wants to play a trap-finder person, should the DM not include traps? Because if that's the case, then choosing to play someone who is good at traps actually increases the likelihood of bad stuff happening from traps.)

This is a matter of group's preferred playstyle (and adventure design style).

One approach, which I call "player focused", is that everyone plays who they think is fun and the GM prepares challenges for these specific characters. In one finds playing a trapfinding rogue fun then surely there will be traps to find, because that's what the player wants. If one plays a healing cleric, there will be many opportunities to heal and preach.

The other approach, "setting focused", is that challenges are independent of characters. Players should cover all important roles and work out party combos for their own advantage and if they don't, it's their own problem. If everybody's refusing to play a healer, it's like playing soccer without a goalkeeper. You can do it, but you will probably lose and you'll only have yourself to blame.


In the player focused style there is no sense in being worried that a specific class choice will hurt the party. There is no external, reference level of challenge. The GM works to make the game fun for given set of players and characters.

In the setting focused style refusing to compromise to cover a role that party needs is childish. You work together to defeat whatever the GM prepared, so if you don't prioritize teamwork, you're taking away everybody's fun.

And a significant style mismatch within a group (typically a result of not discussing it before play) is nearly guaranteed to cause problems at some point.

 

[am181d]

This is a matter of group's preferred playstyle (and adventure design style).

One approach, which I call "player focused", is that everyone plays who they think is fun and the GM prepares challenges for these specific characters. In one finds playing a trapfinding rogue fun then surely there will be traps to find, because that's what the player wants. If one plays a healing cleric, there will be many opportunities to heal and preach.

The other approach, "setting focused", is that challenges are independent of characters. Players should cover all important roles and work out party combos for their own advantage and if they don't, it's their own problem. If everybody's refusing to play a healer, it's like playing soccer without a goalkeeper. You can do it, but you will probably lose and you'll only have yourself to blame.


In the player focused style there is no sense in being worried that a specific class choice will hurt the party. There is no external, reference level of challenge. The GM works to make the game fun for given set of players and characters.

In the setting focused style refusing to compromise to cover a role that party needs is childish. You work together to defeat whatever the GM prepared, so if you don't prioritize teamwork, you're taking away everybody's fun.

And a significant style mismatch within a group (typically a result of not discussing it before play) is nearly guaranteed to cause problems at some point.

Yes. RPGs have an implicit contact between DMs and players that they will agree on a play style that suits everyone.

If the players want to optimize to "beat" a setting, then that's OK. But if players are more interested in creating individual characters that they really like but don't fit together perfectly (e.g. all thieves or all spellcasters) then the DM should work to accommodate and build challenges to take this into consideration.

I call this "The Superfriends Problem." How do you manage a fight that includes both Superman and Batman? You have Bizarro attack Superman and Toyman and Riddler tangle with Batman. And, of course, since Aquaman is there, the whole thing happens next to a body of water.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I call this "The Superfriends Problem." How do you manage a fight that includes both Superman and Batman? You have Bizarro attack Superman and Toyman and Riddler tangle with Batman. And, of course, since Aquaman is there, the whole thing happens next to a body of water.

yes, my problem is when superman blitz toyman and riddler round 1, then round 2 moves to bizarre...


I always tailor my games to the player... if you make a master trap finder, there will be more traps, if you play a cleric I promiss not only a major undead event at some point but in general more religious themes...

On the other hand since right now all healers are bards or religious I do have a problem with that. I really want the warlord option back

 

[SilverfireSage]

For starters, my "problem" is that nobody wants to play the healer specifically and only. Nobody wants to spend their rounds buffing others and healing their injuries.

OTOH, nobody has any problems playing the death-dealing Fighters, Rogues or Wizards. In fact, everyone loves 'em

But perhaps less flippantly, you're mixing up classes with roles.

A Fighter is a class. But the roles behind the game are, traditionally:

Damage Soak

Damage Deal

Damage Heal

You actually don't have to play a Fighter, since any number of classes can fulfil the roles of Soak and Deal.

In the same way, you don't have to play a Cleric, since you can also play a Bard or Druid healbot.

But it is the role of healer I do not want to force upon anyone in my party.

Playing a Cleric - freed from any expectations on providing basic healing - is on the other hand fine. In fact, more than fine.

I would love to play a Cleric in a game where say a NPC Cleric assumes healbot responsibilities.

But I don't want to force a NPC upon my group. I would far prefer optional rules to make natural healing cover this basic need.

For starters there are optional rules in the dungeon masters guide that help alleviate this problem so hopefully this won't matter much in the long run. But to give a counterpoint, I have outright banned clerics in my campaign and the party seems to be doing just fine. They might be a bit more cautious, sure, but the natural healing goes a long way towards covering the need for a cleric. Not to mention that it's really on me, the DM, to not make things so incredibly tough that they can't fight their way out without a cleric. And after ~14 levels now (10 of that being pathfinder, 4 of them 5th) they've been doing just fine.

 

[fjw70]

I have been using my own healing option. I have replaced HD healing by importing healing surges from 4e (each PC gets 4 surges that refresh on a long rest).

 

[Ahrimon]

Just to make sure:

I am not advocating to "dilute the healer role" by handing out Mass Heal Word to everyone. (Woot! Mass Heal Word to EVERYONE )

I am asking for optional rules that only come into effect for groups where nobody happens to want to play the healer just this once.

I still want a Cleric-healbot to make a difference.

I just don't want to have to choose between the wondrous healing of a healbot and "just use your Hit Dice and you'll be fine".

I want the healer-less bottom line to be at, what do I know, perhaps 50% or 80% of the healer's capacity. (Enough to make adventures work, but not so great that a dedicated healer wouldn't be even better.)

Certainly not the 20% or so you get from the RAW: your Hit Dice and free hp at long rests.

Thank you for understanding.

But now you've just created a separate problem where one player wants to play a cleric, but in doing so, everyone else looses access to that optional rule. This could create just as much division as the group that insists that someone play the cleric.