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

[RotGrub]

An implication exists for some clerics, of certain deities. There also have existed, for multiple editions, clerics of certain deities for which no such implication exists; or even, indeed, the opposite implication. There are other classes for which similar implications exist for specific builds. It is for this reason I stress the difference between a "cleric" and a "healer".

If enough pressure exists that the player in question feels the need to spark a public debate about whether it is the DMG's responsibility to address his plight; I am comfortable quantifying it as bullying.

I do recal playing a specialty priest in AD&D 2e who couldn't heal. He could inflict wounds, but he couldn't cure them.

Of course, the party only needed a healer if the DM failed to provide an alternative method of healing via potions, magical items, hirelings, or advancing the time. I'd say that bullying a player to be "the healer" is a poor attitude to have, and it's against the spirit of the game, especially when there are other options.

Non-magical healing is a modern concept that wasn't needed in the past. I understand that some people really like that idea, but it's just not my preference.

 

[MoonSong]

Yeah, that was fairly odd...there's plenty of examples of socially inappropriate behaviours on the forums but not wanting to play a healer surely can't be one of them.

I remember during the playtest the discussion re: healing and how it looked like the cleric was going to be a must in the party again. I hated that idea for a few reasons, but one of them was that it necessitated the existence of religion and/or gods/some kind of spirituality. I was hoping to play a different kind of setting, and the demand for healing in the form of the cleric made that virtually impossible.

Playing D&D since 1e, I can attest to the "short straw plays the cleric" idea...with an NPC thrown in. Same in 2e, though at least then people could specialize with spheres. Similar idea in 3e, though at a certain level, the cleric turned into such an ass-kicker that the demand for healing dropped significantly.

IMO, 4e did it right in 2 ways: One, firmly embracing the nature of hit points, allowing for the existence of the warlord class. Two, healing was a minor action, which meant that the healer was never forced to choose between healing and another type of heroic action. They got to do both. Even their buff spells often triggered of other such actions. Not coincidentally, we had more pc clerics in 4e than we did in all the other editions combined, no exaggeration.

Having said that, I am not sure the burden is as great in 5e as it is in 3e and before. In those editions, you had to prepare specific spells (3x cure light wounds, 2x cure critical wounds, etc.) In 5e, you use one slot out of 13+ to prepare a healing spell, and that's about it. Maybe you use slots on it and maybe you don't, but you aren't nearly as "locked in" as you were in 3e and before. So while I suppose technically you are playing a healer, it's only when direly necessary. And 5e did include healing word as a bonus action so the cleric doesn't have to make that tough choice anymore.

The problem I had in 4e was that healing was a minor action, I guess it was very good for you, but for me it was a nightmare, it felt just wrong, and it truly felt like a chore. The psychological effect was disheartening for me, the part I loved about being a healer turned into an afterthought, something secondary to hurting things and no way to do more without harming the party. And healing allies to death, that too.

Oh, and just to avoid further confusion, please don't read too much between the lines, it was really not my intention to anger CapnZap, if I ever write something that could be interpreted as a hidden insult or something like that please assume no insult is meant. I just need another ten years as an English speaker before catching all of these.

 

[pemerton]

The socially inappropriate behavior in question is not the lack of desire to play a healer; it is the act of pressuring another player (socially) into breaking character (in this case, by healing against the character's nature).

I think this is a pretty strong judgement to make about the game of someone whom (I am assuming) you don't know outside the context of this message board.

For some RPGers, in some contexts, the integrity of the character is sacrosanct. But it is not the be-all-and-end-all for all RPGers in all contexts. If I come into a D&D game and the GM is running a fairly standard, by-the-numbers dungeon expedition, and your PC is the one with healing capabilities but you don't use them to benefit the party in beating the dungeon, I'll be pretty unimpressed!

I don't expect that the presence or absence of Turn Undead in the party's repertoire is going to have any effect on the number of undead that the PC encounters.

In my personal case, it's the opposite: the players, knowing my inclination towards using undead, build PCs with anti-undead capabilities.

I would also add - a clash of expectations and understandings around the relationship between player choices in PC building and GM choices in world/encounter building led to a lot of angst and complaints around the 3E rangers "favoured enemy" ability, sneak attack immunities, etc.

 

[Gimul]

I think this is a pretty strong judgement to make about the game of someone whom (I am assuming) you don't know outside the context of this message board.

For some RPGers, in some contexts, the integrity of the character is sacrosanct. But it is not the be-all-and-end-all for all RPGers in all contexts. If I come into a D&D game and the GM is running a fairly standard, by-the-numbers dungeon expedition, and your PC is the one with healing capabilities but you don't use them to benefit the party in beating the dungeon, I'll be pretty unimpressed!

In my personal case, it's the opposite: the players, knowing my inclination towards using undead, build PCs with anti-undead capabilities.

I would also add - a clash of expectations and understandings around the relationship between player choices in PC building and GM choices in world/encounter building led to a lot of angst and complaints around the 3E rangers "favoured enemy" ability, sneak attack immunities, etc.

Clearly you are able to make the distinction between being "unimpressed " and bullying a player. While the sanctity of a player's character or immersion may well very, the players themselves are still bound by the agreed upon standards of socially acceptable behavior (whatever they may be for the group in question).

However, the phrasing of your statement begs the following questions:
What if they use other skills/spells to the (effective) benefit of the party?
What if that benefit could be demonstrably proven (mathematically) to be equally (or even more) beneficial (to the party as a whole) than healing?
Would you remain "unimpressed"?

Also, as stated before, I have made no judgements about the actions of anyone else's table; I have merely accepted the assumptions, that they themselves have, put forth in the establishment of their basic premise.

 

[Eric V]

The problem I had in 4e was that healing was a minor action, I guess it was very good for you, but for me it was a nightmare, it felt just wrong, and it truly felt like a chore. The psychological effect was disheartening for me, the part I loved about being a healer turned into an afterthought, something secondary to hurting things and no way to do more without harming the party. And healing allies to death, that too.

I don't understand: being able to do something in addition to healing your allies was disheartening? Why? People in my game adored the cleric because he got them back up and shielded them with his magic in the same round. More often than not, the cleric was the mvp at the end of the session and his versatility was a big reason why.

I would have thought that not sacrificing a main action to heal would have been a chore...also, what do you mean by 'healing allies to death?'

 

[MoonSong]

I don't understand: being able to do something in addition to healing your allies was disheartening? Why? People in my game adored the cleric because he got them back up and shielded them with his magic in the same round. More often than not, the cleric was the mvp at the end of the session and his versatility was a big reason why.

I would have thought that not sacrificing a main action to heal would have been a chore...also, what do you mean by 'healing allies to death?'

I was pretty pretty happy using a main action to heal -it wasn't a sacrifice nor a chore-, I never felt the need to do something else in addition to healing in a given round to be useful. It felt as important as attacking, but with the change to minor action it felt less important, your true contribution was making damage as everybody else, activating healing surges something someone had to do, but far from being as vlauable as before, thus turning into a chore. Buffing, healing, defending myself, running towards a fallen comrade and tending their wounds, then use my remaining healing at night so they can start moderately better the next day, in a pinch using my own blood to heal them, no need to get actual kills to be heroic, the heroic action being keeping everybody else alive. Nothing of that in 4e, you couldn't really buff others without hurting enemies, and while there were options to be better at healing, taking them would only prolong fights, getting your friends into more danger than necessary.

As for healing to death. I wasn't the leader in that game, I was playing a defender but we were all 4e noobies and didn't know better, we played as we would 3.5 so we had more than 1 leader -hey in previous editions more healers is better- I ended up soaking too much damage and was healed too much, the leaders weren't making enough damage and I had to take some AOs, in the end I went down very quickly because I didn't have enough surges to be healed at a critical moment so went down by the third fight in the day with everybody else pretty much unharmed. It was a shocking discovery.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

In my personal case, it's the opposite: the players, knowing my inclination towards using undead, build PCs with anti-undead capabilities.

I would also add - a clash of expectations and understandings around the relationship between player choices in PC building and GM choices in world/encounter building led to a lot of angst and complaints around the 3E rangers "favoured enemy" ability, sneak attack immunities, etc.

I made an turning focused cleric for the zombie apocalypse campaign my DM made, and some of the other players customized a character, so I have experience with that type of situation and and enjoy it. It just isn't much fun for me the other way around (campaign customized for characters), since it feels like my choices don't have any effect on the difficulty of the campaign.

I definitely think it is something that DM and players have to have to be on the same wavelength about, otherwise you have exactly the issues you described.

 

[Eric V]

I guess we just have different worldviews on this: In 4e, every time the cleric brought someone from bloodied to almost full hp with his healing powers, no one was confused about what the true contribution was. In fact, sometimes the bard in our party would use an action to cast a healing spell, then use a minor action for majestic word! Sure, the buffs were there, sure there was some damage being done, but it was always about the healing!

Listen, for sure you're entitled to your feelings about playing a leader in 4e; no one is disputing that. I have to admit that what you are describing is pretty alien to me, however. You must be glad for the new edition's option to only spend HD on a long rest.

 

[pemerton]

I made an turning focused cleric for the zombie apocalypse campaign my DM made, and some of the other players customized a character, so I have experience with that type of situation and and enjoy it. It just isn't much fun for me the other way around (campaign customized for characters), since it feels like my choices don't have any effect on the difficulty of the campaign.

I think for a "PC-customised campaign", there may be no effect on difficulty resulting from player decisions. The aim of such a campaign may not be "overcoming challenges", but rather finding out what happens (story-wise) when the PCs are pushed.

In some campaigns the players' decisions will affect difficulty, but not so much at the build stage as at the resolution stage. This is how I tend to find 4e plays.

 

[pemerton]

I have to admit that what you are describing is pretty alien to me

Agreed.