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.
I'm not discussing my game, I'm discussing the game in general. In principle whatever happens on your table doesn't particularly affect me. However this is a case when it can, and very likely will, I know I sound extremely selfish right now, but please bear with me just a few paragraphs and I will explain myself.
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.
The reason for the resistance to help with this, is that, well, actually helping tables where the widespread attitude towards the healer role is one of contempt, of thinking of it as a load and a punishment will encourage those attitudes more and more and produce a self perpetuating problem. More so with an official module that gives more to the PCs when nobody plays a cleric, if it is any good, and gets popular enough, it will discourage players of healbots from playing healers for fear of harming the party.
The less needed you make healers, the more disruptive they become. The more you cater to players who want to "do something fun instead of having to heal", the more you alienate players who actually enjoy it and view it as a personal challenge to keep the party on their feet, resulting in less players you will find who want to play a healer, and it will only get worse if in order to play a satisfactory healer a player needs everybody else to give up power, that is a lost battle. A system that requires a cooperative player who cares about others and helping them being better -qualities needed to enjoy being the one buffing and healing without seeing it as a burden- to actively demand to take away the party's toys in order to have room to be a healer has effectively removed the healer as a viable choice.
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)
You don't really need optional rules, there are some simple solutions:
1) Recruit a player with the express purpose of playing healers. Nobody wants to be the cleric? bring in someone friendly who enjoys doing it, preferably someone who can make it seem as fun as it can be. -the cheap version, create a healer NPC and distribute control over the players.
2) Have players drown on healing potions. Make them cheaper, reduce their cost by 50%-90&. Make them available in treassure hoards by the dozens. Dial with the amount until you find the number that works for you and your table.
3) As an actual house rule, give all PCs for free 1 cure light wounds per short rest, and let it scale with level.
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.
I pretty much agree with most of your points, except the last one part. Derogative expressions like "getting saddled with the healer role" and "being punished with playing the cleric" are symptoms to a bigger problem, that the playerbase thinks of playing the healer as below them, If we really want a long term solution to the healers shortage, we need to stop taking them for granted, we need to start viewing playing the healer as a valid heroic option, as valuable as any other role and not as a load or a systemic problem that has to be eradicated at all costs.
Changing long and short rests actually shouldn't change balance at all. As long as the number of encounters/other resource consuming challenges remains the same between each type of rest, the only impact is narrative. That's the beauty of the rest system they established - it works regardless of how long each type of test is.
If you reduce short rests to be pretty short, they will be easier and more common, and that will change the balance.
I appreciate that you're trying to be conciliatory here, but since, as you've loudly proclaimed multiple times, 5e gives you 90% of your personal preferences, and you're still very publicly considering ditching it over that last 10%, the "why can't we all be one happy family" line seems a bit of a stretch. There are plenty of 4e and 2e and even 3e players who got a lot less than 90% of their personal preferences in the final game, and yet they're quite enthusiastic about it. Clearly you're not the person WOTC should be catering their products towards.
It depends, in general, people don't complain about things they don't care about, personally I find I like many things about 5e, and am very excited by it. It doesn't fulfill all of my preferences, but I plan to keep on being very vocal. If 5e is going to be a living game, voicing the dissatisfaction with certain features will help them being noticed and eventually corrected or taken into account by the design team.
