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

[JRRNeiklot]

If you want to play a healbot, fine. Then we're all good.

But what if you don't? And I don't. And neither will Ann and Bob.

THEN WHAT?

Then don't.

I love AD&D clerics and I usually only prepare one or two healing spells to keep someone alive in an emergency. Most healing is done during down time. I have never in 35 years seen anyone forced to prepare healing spells.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I totally agree with Robgrub and Sailor Moon - each character has a definitive or primary role to play. The fighter is a...well...fighter - he rolls up his sleeves and get into the fight - is this boring and stereotyping a class?

I will admit that I have never seen in 20 years a fighter who doesn't want to fight... I have seen ones who suck at it though. INfact one and only complaint I am used to seeing is "Why is it my fighter is the worst in the group at dealing with monsters?"

The rogue is a stealth and utility class - he sneaks about, hangs in the back shooting or backstabbing and is the first person called up to open doors or locks. When there is a trap, all eyes rolled towards the rogue - is this boring and stereotyping a class?

sometimes yes... see some rogue s are stealth/traps/locks guys... but not all of them. Some are swashbuckler warriros that look at you funny and say "I don't do traps" and some are Face men who are all about being social and interactive and say "Fight? that might mess up my cloths"

The wizard is a man of arcane ability. He also hangs back from close fighting and either shoots off spells or when the spells ran out, he relies on slings, light crossbow and now (which I personally hate), at-will cantrips. is this boring and stereotyping a class? All eyes will look at him when there is a puzzle or an arcane trap - is this boring and stereotyping a class?

wizards are a great example... you bring up that you hate at will cantrips, so I bet you used to prep non combat spells (a great choice) but you can fill just about any role with the right selections of spells... heck 4 specility wizards could be a group.

So, why this thinking that a cleric doesn't welcome the healing role? He is a priest for goodness sake. He seeks to further the ends of his deity. To win more converts and glorify the powers and good-will of his patron.

so you think that further the ends of his deity. To win more converts and glorify the powers and good-will of his patron has to equal healing? what if your god is a god of war, or god of knowledge, or god of death?

All adventures will have combats, traps, puzzles and difficult situations. All classes have its (primary) roles to fulfil.

an adventure we ran last year was trying to stop a war between 2 good aligned countries, we had 0 traps, 1 combat, and the closest thing to a puzzle was trying to figure out who was the one who was trying to force the war... it lasted 5 game sessions... so no not all adventures...

back when I first tried pathfinder we had a (very boreing) game where we went through a dungeon that was supposed to have summoning traps in every room, the problem being of the 6 players only 1 could disarm them...and he did at every turn. so no combats and no puzzles... oh and since he was skill focus (wait is that the game that changed to skill emphasis?) and a high dex and magic thevies tools at no point did he have to roll above a 10, and some times auto succeeded so no difficult situations at all.

back in 3.5 I made a magic item thief, I was a sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster... from the day I hit arcane trickster 1 we never saw a trap... just bigger and bigger combats. I had maxed out cha skills to, but the DM didn't belive in "Roll playing over role playing" so we had to talk it out with out skills, and some how his girlfriend playing the 8 cha 10 wis 11 int half orc barbarian/frenzy bezerker was much better then me at it...

so no not all adventures...

(PS: I shudder to think one day that our doctors said, "I don't want to heal...that's stereotyping and boring"...or in the midst of combat, when our soldiers are injured, our medics fold up their hands and shake their heads saying, "I don't want to heal...")

that is the worst straw man ever...

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Okay, now I understand: we are massively misunderstanding each other!

The reason I am discussing alternatives to having one player fulfilling the healer role, is because I am convinced 5E works much like any other edition: a healer is all but required. Hit dice and potions does not even come close in keeping you going, in my opinion, compared to a Cleric or other heal-oriented character.

I do not want the healer to be required, because I want the game to work even when nobody wants to take the healer role. I still believe the healing itself (the timely Cure spells, the ressurection, the healing words and auras) is needed for a party to compete. But I don't want any single player to have to be the one handling this - I want an optional rule that allows all party members to collectively share the "burden" of healing.

What I do fully agree to, is this:

"I don't think a healer should be required, but I think it should be beneficial."

Exactly. The difference between us is that while I consider a healer-less party to operate at perhaps 20% or 50% capacity, not enough to keep going at the "normal" rate; you think potions and Hit Dice is enough.

But we still agree on one point: it would be nice if the party could do without a healer, but when one is present, everybody notices the welcome heal-bonus!

 

[CapnZapp]

...

Sorry but I will need you to take your crusade elsewhere.

I thank you for your proposed solution #3, which actually addresses my problem, but otherwise I am not interested. You see, my players are already not interested in the healing role, and so perhaps we can agree that you are not helping in any way: I definitely will not tell my players they're playing the game wrong, or that there is anything wrong with what they like or dislike about the game.

What I need you to understand is that I am asking for optional rules. As in "rules not in the Player's Handbook". As in "rules you can freely disregard". As in "rules you are not entitled to stop discussion about". Thank you.

 

[CapnZapp]

Then don't.

I love AD&D clerics and I usually only prepare one or two healing spells to keep someone alive in an emergency. Most healing is done during down time. I have never in 35 years seen anyone forced to prepare healing spells.

Not helpful.

(Your way is not the only way to play the game, remember...)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Steenan covers this. If your goal is to turn up and beat the GM's dungeon, then presumably the healing rules, that help set the parameters for "beating", have already been established. (Although perhaps there could be a "handicap" system - the group that takes on the G-series with nothing but thieves get bonus healing potions to start with, or something.) But if the group is playing a "player-focused" game, then tweaking the healing system (the density of traps, etc) is part of making sure that each player gets the experience out of the game s/he was looking for..

I just want to play as the character, without fear that which character I play as will change the nature of the campaign/world/dungeon. The decision to become a theif or a cleric is (to a significant extent) an in-character choice that reflects the world at large, and the nature of the challenges it presents.

"Player-focused" design causes an internal feedback loop that give me a headache :-/

 

[MechaPilot]

Did anyone's DM never give the PC's a free hireling if someone in the group didn't want to play a cleric, or make sure healing potions were readily available?

Yes. Not giving the group a free cleric hireling and not throwing in extra potions to compensate for no cleric has happened. Some DM's religiously use the random tables to hand out treasure and magic goods. Under those DMs, you find what you find, and you had better just make lemonade out of it.

The very first time that I played a 2e cleric, I picked it because I thought the class was cool, not because I wanted to be a healbot. I spent that entire session with the rest of the group trying to force me to memorize/use healing and restoration type spells, and telling me that I didn't know how to play a cleric whenever I did anything but heal in combat. I didn't touch the class for an entire year after that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The very first time that I played a 2e cleric, I picked it because I thought the class was cool, not because I wanted to be a healbot. I spent that entire session with the rest of the group trying to force me to memorize/use healing and restoration type spells, and telling me that I didn't know how to play a cleric whenever I did anything but heal in combat. I didn't touch the class for an entire year after that.

One of the fun things about clerics in 2E is that they explicitly asked for spells, rather than just preparing them (as a wizard would). There was even an example in the book about a life-domain-type cleric who got a little too wrathful with spells, and upon asking for certain spells the next day, would end up with only healing spells.

There's no reason it couldn't work the other way, though. If you wanted to pray for some fun/useful/thematic spells, but were harangued into praying for healing spells, your deity could see through that coercion and give you the spells you really wanted instead.

 

[Gimul]

Not helpful.

(Your way is not the only way to play the game, remember...)

I think the heart of this matter is the expectations of the players. Some seem to feel that "healbotting" is an implied part of playing a cleric.

Rarely is this implication dictated by the mechanics of the (in game) situation; things like 4e style "lair assaults" being notable exceptions. Typically this is the result of (OOC) player assumptions.

Just as the DM/Player social contract (implicit or explicit) is important, so is the Player/Player social contract. There is nothing wrong with a cleric ignoring the healing aspects of the class, as long as it is consistent with the characters' alignment/roleplay history/etc. It is, however, important that the other players understand the how (if not the why) of the character's behavior (in the general).

Obviously the amount of healing available should impact party tactics and decision making; but it should not have a greater affect on overall party effectiveness than the availability other types of utility (soak, nuke, face, stealth, skills, etc).

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry but I will need you to take your crusade elsewhere.

I thank you for your proposed solution #3, which actually addresses my problem, but otherwise I am not interested. You see, my players are already not interested in the healing role, and so perhaps we can agree that you are not helping in any way: I definitely will not tell my players they're playing the game wrong, or that there is anything wrong with what they like or dislike about the game.

What I need you to understand is that I am asking for optional rules. As in "rules not in the Player's Handbook". As in "rules you can freely disregard". As in "rules you are not entitled to stop discussion about". Thank you.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But what I tell you is that people need relatively little to feel entitled to something, and as such any good solution that comes from any place remotely official looking can be grounds for it. Take for example Feats and multiclassing, officially they are optional, but I know of many people who will refuse to play with any DM who doesn't want them. The same with a killer rule that makes healers unnecessary, as much optional as you want to make it, players will feel entitled to it eventually, and that will be very hard to disregard the day a healbot player lands on your table. The danger from it coming form an official source is that this will repeat on many tables to the point that eventually no healer players will feel welcome on any table. (If you still aren't convinced on how easily people feel entitled, just notice how you just told me to talk only about what you want when you are not a Mod nor the OP of this thread)

It isn't your players are playing wrong, but their attitude towards the healer role could certainly improve. As such came my suggestion 1, bring in an additional player who would love to keep your players healed, I'm not telling you to ditch your players and replace them, just to supplement them. If not, my second suggestion, if you want them to share healing duty, make a healbot NPC and have them share it with they taking turns to play it, just don't replace this NPC right away if it dies, this has the added benefit of they eventually caring about it, and if a healer player ever lands on your table, well the rest of your players will be grateful as he/she will be taking away an external source of power, not something part of of their characters.

This is also the thing, why are you worried about this issue? have your players complained official adventures are too hard? Have you TPK'd your party? Is it only you who cares? Are your players worried they don't have enough healing? I don't know about the context that makes you care.

HD and an insane amount of potions should already do the trick, if you feel they don't, just make the potions stronger and turn hit dice into healing surges (equal in value to 1/4 total hp, and with a number equal to average Hp/lv per class), or make them fully refresh in a short rest. You could also allow the medicine skill to be used as an action -or bonus action if your party is specially picky- to allow someone else to spend healing dice (Dc 13-15 or something like that). Or rule that all Hit dice are maximum.

it would be nice if the party could do without a healer, but when one is present, everybody notices the welcome heal-bonus!

But well, the threshold between useful and required is thin, as is the one between not required and useless. One player "hey look I'm awesome at healing" can easily be another's "I have to play a healer, having one is so good we need one no matter what", conversely one table's "we can go on without a healer" easily turns into "we don't want a healer, they don't pull their weight" in a different one. Or one player "Well I'm having a moderate effect on the party" is easily "I'm having no effect on the party" for another.

You're misreading the counterfactual. It's not "Would the PCs be less successful if I was playing a different character?", to which the answer, in an even remotely balanced game, must be "not really". It's "Would the PCs be less successful if my PC was not there?" And that's as true for a healer as for a fighter or MU.

Probably this is the problem in here, my worries are more centered on the answer to the question "Would the PCs be more successful if I wasn't playing the healer?", or closer to my fears "Am I harming the party by playing the healer?" the less beneficial the healer is, the closer to that question being "Yes, you are harming the party, you are causing them to get hurt, having longer combats and are wasting everybody's reduced game time".

Of course a party with a healer can accomplish more than if it lacked the healer. The issue is, should it be able to accomplish more than if it substituted a skirmisher, or a wizard, for the healer? I'm happy if the game gives a marginal reward for the synergy of diverse PCs - D&D is a party-oriented game, after all. But I don't think those benefits should eclipse other options. Choosing to play the second warrior, or the second archer, rather than a healer, should marginally increase the skill needed for the party to act at full efficiency. It shouldn't be crippling.

Of course I don't want the party to be crippled too much when playing without a healer, but the more you make sure the party isn't crippled without a healer the more you cripple the healer by necessity.