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

[Uchawi]

The problem with healing is the same thing with overall class design with a class like the fighter. Instead of having a class mechanic for each class (like spells for casters) you have a hodgepodge of abilities or concepts in the fighter that should have been separate classes (Champion, Battlemaster, Eldritch Knight) with a class mechanic to change what those classes can do (including healing).

There should be a mechanism for any class to change ability like choosing spells. Without that, you can change things external to the class like hit dice, recovery rate, items, etc. but you are still left with things within the class that can not be fine tuned.

I guess the analogy would be trying to program with all the variables defined at the global level, without any parameters passing to fine tune how the program operates.

And how hit points are treated, how they are recovered or managed is front and center to a multitude of viewpoints (arguments) that determine how you want to play the game. To me that was the core argument for modularity starting with class options, and going out from there, to be able to plug and play until you had the game you wanted.

Whether the DMG is even close to providing modularity will soon be evident.

 

[Minigiant]

I am kinda sad that there isn't any talk of the "Faith in the Apothecary" option.

Where the "Local Potions Vendor" will always a number of potions for sale as the combined levels of your party and "thieves" will always steal from you if you ever go over that number.

Basically the good video game route. "You'll always have enough healing items if you aren't playing stupid. Not one has to play healer if you aren't playing stupid."

 

[jrowland]

TL;DR: Break the strong connection between "rest" and a given unit of time, and provide rules to put the scenario in control over how and when you rest.

That's the warhammer fantasy roleplay 3ed (now discontinued) approach. Narrative refreshes.

 

[RotGrub]

Yes the game is indeed geared towards that play style.

And I am happy you like playing a healbot!

What? "Me playing that healbot?" you say. "No way!"

Perhaps you meant you really don't mind playing in a game where somebody else gives you the magical healing the game depends on...?





...

(Sorry. I do not mean to target you, and I don't mean to imply you are that player. I just couldn't resist making fun of that very common sentiment)

Why make fun of that perspective with a strawman argument?

I simply like games in which divine healing has meaning. I couldn't care less if that healing comes from a cleric, a staff of healing, a wand, potions, or even a DM plot device that grants regeneration.

In our games no one was ever forced to play a cleric. If the players didn't want to play one it was up to the DM to solve the lack of healing. Heck he might even create an DM run NPC cleric or allow the PCs to hire one.

If the group forced a player to be the healer that was their choice, it wasn't a problem with the game at all.

 

[Emerikol]

I would never go for narrative refreshes.

I too would never force a cleric/healer on the group. I've been fortunate that I've had a few players that love clerics. I would love to play a cleric in a good campaign. The roleplaying possibilities are so rich. If no one wanted to play a cleric though, then the DM could provide an NPC henchman or hireling.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

This is not at all what I am talking about.

I am questioning the very premise.

Not "do every group need healing" because I am firmly convinced they do.

But "do the game work only if a SINGLE player plays the healer?"

What I am trying to discuss is:

If healing were made available to every member of the group (in some fashion) could the game work much the same, only with the requirement "at least one healer" removed.

There is nothing childish about questioning the basic premise you take for granted here: yes, the party needs healing - but is the only way to provide it to hand it out to just one of the four party members...?

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Are you seriously trying to convince me the only way to avoid "division" is just to take all rules for granted, change nothing, and just play the book?

If somebody wants to play a cleric, and more importantly: wants to take the healer role, I would say problem solved and not created.

It is for groups where none of the players particularly wish to take the healer role I wish there were an optional rule that made the game work even with nobody filling the healer role.

In other words, upgrading natural healing to such an extent that the game still "works" (obviously the game works no matter what you play, but I mean that the game needs to give you healing enough to cover the minimum (of what a Cleric would have given you) necessary to play adventures the way they're meant, with not too many stops and breaks along the way)

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

This.

It surprises me to no end that not only is the question "how to change D&D to make it work without anyone taking the healer role?" not a natural question often discussed ...

... but the deeply ingrained resistance against this notion that makes this thread twelve pages and still nearly no* actual feedback on any actual solutions... :-/


*) the very few of you who have provided responses meant to discuss the actual issue: thank you.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm all for allowing cleric players not to be healers, but not if that means I can't be a healer anymore.

I am not discussing your game.

Feel free to not post in the thread if you are unable to separate yourself from your own campaign. Thank you.

If you were in my campaign, the simplest solution would be for you to take the healer role and we would all be grateful no rules have to be changed.

But you aren't in my campaign, so let us discuss what to do when nobody else want to assume the healer role... in a campaign you aren't personally part of.

 

[Ahrimon]

Are you seriously trying to convince me the only way to avoid "division" is just to take all rules for granted, change nothing, and just play the book?

If somebody wants to play a cleric, and more importantly: wants to take the healer role, I would say problem solved and not created.

It is for groups where none of the players particularly wish to take the healer role I wish there were an optional rule that made the game work even with nobody filling the healer role.

In other words, upgrading natural healing to such an extent that the game still "works" (obviously the game works no matter what you play, but I mean that the game needs to give you healing enough to cover the minimum (of what a Cleric would have given you) necessary to play adventures the way they're meant, with not too many stops and breaks along the way)

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm merely pointing out that your proposal of an alternate system that enhances the others when a healer isn't present could create the opposite situation where the group refuses to allow a healer because they like that feature.

I don't think a healer should be required, but I think it should be beneficial. A party should be able to accomplish more with a healer, the same as any other class. Having a wizard, warrior, or rogue isn't necessary but should be beneficial and help the party accomplish more.

I think 5e strikes a great balance between the two. If you have a healer you can accomplish more in a day. If you don't, you have hit dice and potions to keep you going.

You want the healer to be required, and that's cool. Adjust the game as necessary. It may be great for your group, but don't be surprised to learn that sometimes whoever is getting saddled with the healer role doesn't have as much fun.