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

[MechaPilot]

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.

While that would have been cool, that's not what happened in the group at the time. The only interest that I had in healing spells when I made that character was to speed up healing when we had to stop and rest for at least one whole day to heal. The rest of the time, I was more interested in spells with combat utility (protecting and buffing me and mine, and harming our enemies).

Unfortunately, for reasons that I already mentioned, that didn't work out.

 

[CapnZapp]

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).

Well, if the only thing that stood between me and my goal would have been to clearly state my intentions then there wouldn't be a problem.

The problem, you see, is that every party needs healing. (For my purposes, at least. If you disagree, then please don't state that. Instead, assume I'm right, so the discussion can proceed)

Whether I roll up a rogue or a cleric, if I don't supply it, somebody else must.

The smaller issue is:
* The social pressure for me to act as healer is greater on a Cleric on a Rogue.
Perhaps obvious, but still: if I am conflict averse, I'm much more likely to avoid pressure by choosing Rogue. Thus my options are limited. I think it is wrong to limit options. A better solution would be for the game to optionally supply adequate healing some other way for those groups who are thankful they don't have to dedicate any given person to that role.

But the bigger issue is:
* The game does not provide adequate healing any other way than through a healer.

While this ensures the importance of the healer, should somebody want to play one, it leaves you with no good options (potions and hit dice does not cut it, I'm afraid) if nobody does.

This is what I want a solution for. Preferably official. Preferably in the DMG. Always optional.

 

[CapnZapp]

It isn't your players are playing wrong, but their attitude towards the healer role could certainly improve.

This sentence says it all...

You are telling me how to run my game, and what about D&D my players ought to like. You make wild assumptions and treat my interests as a danger to the game itself, somehow. You come across as condescending and you are disruptive.

Finally, you keep engaging me in superficially polite conversation? Are you mad?

I am going to ask you nicely one more time: Don't derail my questions and don't undermine my interests!

In return, I won't derail and undermine yours. In fact, let's not talk to each other at all. Thank you.

 

[Manbearcat]

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

That is a very curious statement. I'd like to hear more of how this plays out for you in your mind. I say that because I would literally say the inverse:

"Player-focused" design causes an internal feedback loop that consistently gives myself and my players a satisfying gaming experience.

For instance, in a current Dungeon World game I'm running, my players are playing the following characters:

Elven Arcane Duelist (Otthor)

Alignment (Good): Slay a menace to the innocent.

Bonds:

* Saerie and I share a common enemy. We will not rest until they are utterly defeated.
* Saerie has much to teach me about the ways of this world.
* I will protect the weak against the tyranny of evil men.
* I will pursue the lost art of the Bladesong.​

Elven Ranger (Saerie)

Alignment (Chaotic): Break an unjust law to benefit another.

Bonds:

* Otthor does not understand the wilds of this place, so I will teach him.
* I worry about the ability of Otthor to relate to the humans of this world.
* The layfolk of this world are brave souls, I have much to learn from them.
* I am bound by solemn oath to protect Giliad’s Rest.​

The system rewards 1 XP to players for each of the following things:

1) Fail a "move" (roll a 6 or less)
2) Fulfill your alignment
3) Resolve a bond
4) At the end of each session, these three questions are answered as a group:

- Did we learn something new and important about the world?
- Did we overcome a notable monster or enemy?
- Did we loot a memorable treasure?​

For each “yes” answer everyone marks XP.

It is a tightly designed system marrying these components, the basic resolution mechanics, player moves, GM moves, and very transparent and focused GMing principles. Given my two PCs, here is a short list of thematically laden scenes/conflicts I should be framing them into:

1) An antagonist defiles an innocent specifically or innocence as an idea, especially if it can manifest as an opportunity for a duel - Otthor.
2) A set of precepts that a society is ordered around which may have some tension (which she could perceive as unjust) built within them to perpetuate the culture's values or fundamental needs (such as exploitation of a particular caste, might equals right, or over-burdensome debt/duty fulfillment) - Saerie.
3) Opportunities for Otthor to clash with the people of this world and opportunities for Saerie to learn from them - both.
4) Opportunities for Otthor to be bewildered or awe-struck by the wilderness so Saerie may teach him its ways, price, and boons - both.
5) The people of Gilliad's Rest needs to be placed in peril - Saerie.
6) I need to put in place strong, wicked, and exploitative antagonists that advantage themselves by or mistreat the weak, the meek, and the downtrodden - Otthor.
7) We need to learn through play just what the lost art of the Bladesong is and how it may be found/recovered - Otthor.
8) I need to give both of them opportunities to strut their thematic stuff (moves) from their classes/race:

a) Duels (especially with humanoids) + gallant warriory stuff that lets him express his martial/magical prowess, his boldness, and his accrued martial mental acumen - Otthor.

b) Hunting/tracking/treking/stalking; living in the unforgiving wilds on the strength of your own skill and your loyal animal companion alone - Saerie.

9) Together, we need to learn new stuff about the world and about the characters as we "play to find out what happens"; Which means low prep (no over-riding metaplot that dictates the play agenda in place of the "player-focused feedback loop") and very low resolution setting (as this will emerge through play).


With even a modicum of GMing skill and proactive players, it inexorably funnels play precisely toward that "player-focused feedback loop" that you apparently are not a fan of.

---

Let us say you were running the above game instead of me. I'm assuming that you feel that prioritising 1-9 is GMing, and ultimately providing a play experience, that "gives you a headache?" I'm curious as it seems to logically follow.

- Do your GMing principles then include relative (or perhaps complete?) anarchy with respect to prioritizing generating content that the players have signaled they're interested in engaging with (versus, say, stuff they don't care about or actually are overtly disinterested in engaging with)?

- If your GMing principles do prioritize generating content other than stuff your players have signaled they're interested in interacting with, what is it precisely?

(i) Stuff that you personally want to see them engage with?
(ii) Stuff that you think they would be interested in engaging with even though it is/might be different than their overt signals?
(iii) Something else?

 

[Ahrimon]

I think some people are exaggerating the whole "wasting your turns to heal" argument when it comes to clerics. I'm not sure about you but our clerics weren't continously having to bounce around the battlefield healing everyone. Secondly, clerics were designed to be a support/melee character so you knew what you were getting into before the game started. Also, will someone please explain to me what it means to be "doing something cool"? 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?

I haven't seen the "wasting your turns to heal" argument until 5e, but I'm pretty sure I've seen lots of numbers included in those posts. So I chalk it up to the white room math folks that like to boil the game down to the mathematically optimal course of action/attack/spell/ability/etc. That's great for them, that's how they like to play. I doubt it ever survives real life play though. There are just too many things that they don't take into account.

 

[Ahrimon]

But the bigger issue is:
* The game does not provide adequate healing any other way than through a healer.

Personal opinion, but I think it does. Bards, Paladins, Rangers (Do they still get healing?) all get access to healing abilities. Plus, I'm pretty sure that there are feats and backgrounds that give more access to healing. It's a sacrifice the other players have to make though. Choose to go with less healing or adjust character options for more healing.

 

[Gimul]

Well, if the only thing that stood between me and my goal would have been to clearly state my intentions then there wouldn't be a problem.

The problem, you see, is that every party needs healing. (For my purposes, at least. If you disagree, then please don't state that. Instead, assume I'm right, so the discussion can proceed)

Whether I roll up a rogue or a cleric, if I don't supply it, somebody else must.

The smaller issue is:
* The social pressure for me to act as healer is greater on a Cleric on a Rogue.
Perhaps obvious, but still: if I am conflict averse, I'm much more likely to avoid pressure by choosing Rogue. Thus my options are limited. I think it is wrong to limit options. A better solution would be for the game to optionally supply adequate healing some other way for those groups who are thankful they don't have to dedicate any given person to that role.

But the bigger issue is:
* The game does not provide adequate healing any other way than through a healer.

While this ensures the importance of the healer, should somebody want to play one, it leaves you with no good options (potions and hit dice does not cut it, I'm afraid) if nobody does.

This is what I want a solution for. Preferably official. Preferably in the DMG. Always optional.

No. We cannot just assume you are right, because your basic premise is faulty (aside from which, doing so would forgo the need for further conversation).

First, social pressure to heal should not stem from the nature on one's class, but from the nature of one's character. Simply put, healers heal; clerics further their diety's ethos; and the amount of overlap varies greatly. If your group is applying more pressure to heal on one class than the other; then your problem is not mechanical in nature, it is interpersonal.

Second, why do should all groups need magical healing? A group of stealthy characters can make use of ambush/guerilla tactics. A group of tanks can make shield walls or outlast opponents and then hole up for a rest. A group of faces may avoid combat entirely, burying the opposition in paperwork.

Your group composition may well dictate your tactics, but your campaign setting should not dictate your group composition (mechanically, obviously fluff is setting dependant).

You have rightly pointed out that it is not enough to clearly state your intentions; the other players need to respect your characters' alignment/roleplay history (assuming your play is consistent with it). This is what I referred to as the player/player social contract. A failure to do so is not a problem with the system, it is a problem with your fellow players.

 

[CapnZapp]

Personal opinion, but I think it does. Bards, Paladins, Rangers (Do they still get healing?) all get access to healing abilities. Plus, I'm pretty sure that there are feats and backgrounds that give more access to healing. It's a sacrifice the other players have to make though. Choose to go with less healing or adjust character options for more healing.

Please note: I'm talking about the healer role, not the classes most associated with healing.

Case in point: my friend created a paladin in the expectation to be the group's front and center, with cool buff abilities and a capable offense.

He was dismayed to learn that even as a second-rate healer, his healing abilities was critically needed in several close fights. While profusely thanked for providing this sorely needed healing (far more than the alternative given, 2d4 heal potions), it was plain out in the open that

* the game forces him to spend his actions on healing simply because the healer role is required and the party didn't bring another heal-capable class *

Later, we persuaded an Elf Priestess to Tymora to join our travels. That is, an NPC Cleric who could assume the healing role.

Now, what I am asking for, is a way to build in adequate healing into the game's fabric (optionally, of course) so we don't need all the extra brainburn and paperwork that comes with a NPC.

The NPC is only there because the game doesn't work properly without a healer. Which, to me, is a shame. D&D would be more fun if there were an optional rule allowing a party to skip a dedicated healer, instead providing comparable healing power dispersed over every hero.

 

[CapnZapp]

No. We cannot just assume you are right, because your basic premise is faulty (aside from which, doing so would forgo the need for further conversation).

<snip>

No. You misunderstand me.

I am not in the least interested in debating whether my feelings are as valid as yours.

I am interested in discussing various solutions to what I perceive to be a lack.

That's plenty "further conversation" for me.

Feel free to join in

 

[CapnZapp]

I haven't seen the "wasting your turns to heal" argument until 5e, but I'm pretty sure I've seen lots of numbers included in those posts. So I chalk it up to the white room math folks that like to boil the game down to the mathematically optimal course of action/attack/spell/ability/etc. That's great for them, that's how they like to play. I doubt it ever survives real life play though. There are just too many things that they don't take into account.

I have no intention to intrude upon this particular subdiscussion, but just wanted to clarify something:

It isn't about optimal play.

It's about what a player thinks is fun.

At least for me, when I read the phrase "wasting your turns to heal" I am not concerned about whether it is mathematically sound to do a heal or not. I am thinking about the fact that if no player around the table likes to do heals, then why do one of them have to do many more than the others?

Why couldn't there be an optional rule that allowed all players some of the healing so no single one of them had to do most of it...?

Thank you for reading. Please continue where you left off...