D&D 5E (2014) On the healing options in the 5e DMG

[Vyvyan Basterd]

the worst reminder of this whole thing is that I just ran a 1 off game for some friends based on an argument here on the boards and when I posted the results one of the first things I was told was it didn't count cause I didn't have a full cleric, because everyone know you need one...

My pre-3E groups actually used to roll off to see who would play the cleric. Lowest roller was forced to play one, as no one wanted to be the medic.

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.

It's not different on the face of it. But there is a shared experience that has occurred enough to become a hobby meme. You don't hear this as an issue for the other three because someone usually wanted to play one. The next closest, IME, to not want to play was the Thief. But you could multiclass as a fighter/thief and not spend your combat turns caring for others, whereas a fighter/cleric would still be expected to heal in combat.

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry what?

I'm not trying to ruin your fun. Feel free to continue running your game with the rules as written in the PHB.

The house rules or modules I use to run the game are irrelevant when I'm playing, you know...

I am hoping for an optional set of rules that allows

Groups to adventure without anyone forced to play a healer

and

Players to choose classes like Clerics without being forced to spend their time on defense

How can any of this make you go ballistic?

The very nature of the D&D game means that healing is not really optional, no matter what people might think.

I am just trying to find an alternative where the responsibility for managing this healing and spending your adventuring actions on support spells is not put on any single player, but instead collectively shared by everyone.

In what way does this make you feel you must go confrontational? Either that, or I am massively misreading your post...

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.

I'm not really going ballistic on this, really, but as I told you, there is no true middle ground. The Healer role is either necessary or superfluous. This 20% of not needing a healer in the party already detracts from the healer experience, not being able to prolong the adventuring day by design already places a constraint to the archetype, the dilution I'm talking about. Make the default 80% and then the healer becomes a liability to the party (someone who inflicts damage beyond the baseline most of the time and only occasionally heals is not exactly a healer, is it?)

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.

Yes, indeed. Turning a needed character concept into a disruptive character concept won't help matters. I'm all for allowing cleric players not to be healers, but not if that means I can't be a healer anymore.

 

[aramis erak]

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."

My HotDQ player have had few issues despite never having had a cleric. They make use of rests and healing potions, and it's a non-issue. The clerics are useful in-combat, but they make do without.

 

[Warunsun]

I often have had players loathing to play the thief (sometimes worse than the cleric). The only time it wasn't a terrible issue was under D&D Fourth Edition where rogues were beast and even then there were some options available. Under D&D Fifth Edition there are some backgrounds and tools that could cover a rogue's place but I don't believe it will work as well in practice. Clerics haven't been totally boring to play since D&D Third Edition and they were pretty awesome under D&D Fourth Edition. I think they are probably taking a step back under D&D Fifth Edition but should still be not boring and capable of a good deal now. My players have been playing Castles & Crusades for a year or so now so the 5E cleric should seem awesome to them.

 

[the Jester]

Interesting thread.

Here's what I've been doing with healing on a long rest:

After a long rest, you regain half your HD (rounded down, minimum 1). You can spend any or all of them to regain hps, but don't otherwise regains hit points on your own.

It slows down natural healing enough for me without really slowing recovery down a ton. But I like to do things to break the "1st to 20th level in a month" paradigm into pieces.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You know that coffee was so hot it gave her third degree burns? and she just sued so she could pay the medical bills? Of course there are pretty ridiculous frivolous suits, but this one isn't the case.

We also don´t have to sue to pay medical bills...
And yes coffee is made with boiling water... it is indeed hot...

 

[Ahrimon]

We also don´t have to sue to pay medical bills...
And yes coffee is made with boiling water... it is indeed hot...

There's quite a difference between hot coffee which would scald and cause 1st degree burns, about the equivalent of a bad sunburn, and coffee so hot that it causes third degree burns, as in burned clear through the skin and down into the flesh.

 

[Joe Liker]

This discussion makes me feel like I'm the only person in the world who knows about healing potions. For those of you unfamiliar, they are a method of self-healing available to all characters, no matter what class. They are also specified as common loot, so they are in a lot of treasure stashes. They are also on the list of common equipment, purchasable in most major marketplaces for only 50 gp.

Every post I've made assumes that players have adequate access to healing potions ... because the game itself assumes this. If healing potions are rare in your game for some reason, then yes, every party is going to need a healer. But that means you're not exactly playing according to the written equipment rules, so it stands to reason you're going to have balance issues with other healing rules as well.

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] Rolling a bard with no healing spells is in no way similar to rolling a rogue. A bard helps bolster the party's hp with Song of Rest, and it's very helpful.

As for life clerics, yes, I fully recognize that they are far more efficient at healing than other clerics, and they are indeed the one and only example of a cleric who actually should be healing instead of buffing or attacking. But I sort of thought it was obvious that they were exceptional. Unless you are suggesting that this renders all the other domains stupid and worthless, everything I said remains true for those other domains.

 

[Emerikol]

I think basically we are divided based upon how much we really enjoyed the playstyles of 1e, 2e, and 3e. I never really felt they needed fixing. Sure a spell here or there perhaps but overall the game was good. I feel others would not agree. 4e was a major conceptual revision to the game that was either rejected by people like me or embraced by people who felt pre-4e really needed major fixing. 5e now is still embracing many of the concepts of 4e even if it looks on the outside a lot more like pre-4e.

It's pointless to go around telling other people how to play or how to have fun. So I hope everyone knows I am not doing that. I am though firm on what I like and what I don't like and many of the decisions post 3e took the game in a direction I didn't like. 5e does have some good ideas that I might very well houserule into other games if I don't end up playing it.

I'm not sure what I'm going to do. My options are probably the following...
1. Play 5e and houserule healing and the DS mechanics. Even the offered options (as I've seen them) don't really fully work for me. They are indicative that the devs at least tried though which is why I am considering playing 5e.
2. Play 3e and houserule. Not Pathfinder. Pathfinder put 3e on steriods and honestly it was more than steroided enough for me. I would likely steal a few things from 5e if I went this route.
3. Play Castles and Crusades. Houserule in some missing complexity that I actually prefer.

That is where I am at. I own 3e (tons of it) and I own a good bit of C&C. I don't yet own any 5e. So 5e has to be good enough to overcome the additional cost as well.

 

[Emerikol]

Another thought to go along with my previous post. Prior to 4e, I always felt like I was part of the D&D "family". I was gung ho for every edition. I thought there was a shared perspective on the game and the universe. Since then I've felt like this "family" has become dysfunctional. We are at each others throats because we no longer have that shared vision. Now I realize it was an illusion because back during 1e, 2e, and 3e apparently many of you were really unhappy. I and my buddies were always really happy right up until we were not. Since 4e we've become jaded and cynical. I thought 5e might be a unifying force but regardless of what I do I doubt it succeeds in that regard with my community of friends. Even if I run 5e, I doubt that will mean everyone in my circle is running it.