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

[Chocolategravy]

If a level 1 party wants to attack a CR 20 dragon, let them. If a party without a healer wants to assault a 6-8 fight per day dungeon, let them. Eventually they'll get tired of making new characters and hire NPC healers and stop attacking dragons.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you for, finally, re-defining the premise to eliminate social dependantcy.

I don't know what that means. I'm playing a game. Not bringing about the end of civilization.

The base rules support healer-less healing (through rests, potions and DM throttling of the encounter pace).

The published adventures less so, although this is to be expected as the majority of published adventures tend to railroad at a set (standard) encounter pace. They also tend to have certain plot points that must be achieved in order to continue; and often assume (are tuned for) a relatively standard party composition (role wise).

Thank you for stating the obvious. The rest of us are already here, and eager to go on.

Three obvious ways for a DM to tune such publications for a healer-less party are to modify the adventure (parts that railroad the party into tank and spank style encounters; parts that don't advance the story but sap resources; parts that only allow for brute force resolution), increase the availability of potions/item based healing, or re-tune specific encounters.

Thanks, but do you have any non-obvious suggestions perhaps?

Like, I don't know, any that actually are on the topic? Namely, suggestions on how to tweak the game rules to make the game "compatible" with published modules for groups where nobody wants to be the one spending their actions healing others?

Since, well, not wanting to do any of those three obvious solutions was specifically why I was asking?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure that it can be done. When you have a single healing character to do the job, you don't just increase the effective HP of the party by X/4 for the course of the day; you have a free-floating pool of X Hit Points that you can distribute among whichever characters need it most. There's no amount of distributed healing that would have the same effect as that focused healing.

Thank you.

One option I've been toying with is to implement a "cleric in a box".

That is, a magic item with the capabilities of a (rather mediocre) cleric. In its simplest form, it gets the "pyramid" of spell slots of the cleric, the Cure Wounds spell (and perhaps rssurect), and that's it.

Advantages:
- no NPC healer required and all the fuss that entails (a fifth character to keep track of, a fifth set of hit points) including "he's a cleric, he should be able to do X" meaning the DM sooner or later needs to learn that NPCs capabilities. A healer item does not need to be a "full character" with all the abilities that entails.
- you can switch around the "healer mantle" from session to session. As long as everybody understands they need to play the (semi-)healer every four sessions (no "I'm the rogue, it doesn't suit my style to play the healer/I'll do a poor job/it's sub-optimal play" arguments)
- no rules changes needed.

If everybody absolutely refuses to use such an item, its healing actions could be made minor actions.

In theory, this would mean the current "healer"'s style wouldn't be cramped. But obviously it would still impact some characters harder than others (since different classes depend on minor actions differently)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

One option I've been toying with is to implement a "cleric in a box".

That is, a magic item with the capabilities of a (rather mediocre) cleric. In its simplest form, it gets the "pyramid" of spell slots of the cleric, the Cure Wounds spell (and perhaps rssurect), and that's it.

I think they covered something like this in late 3.5, though I can't recall whether it was in the PHB2 or the DMG2. In any case, there was an option that the party could form a pact with a spirit, which was a formless NPC that never had to talk and could be called upon to perform certain boons throughout the day. Anyone that was part of the pact could call upon the spirit, kind of like a shared inventory for spells. At least, that's how I remember it; I might be way off.

It wouldn't be too difficult to say that the spirit provides X boon points per day, and work up point costs for Cure Wounds / Healing Word / Restoration / Raise Dead.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If a party without a healer wants to assault a 6-8 fight per day dungeon, let them. Eventually they'll get tired of making new characters and hire NPC healers and stop attacking dragons.

It is not a logical necessity that the party must be of a particular composition, or they should not be allowed be fun. Baking such into the system is a design flaw.

 

[Eric V]

It is not a logical necessity that the party must be of a particular composition, or they should not be allowed be fun. Baking such into the system is a design flaw.

Agreed. I feel that design flaw is there, though.

 

[Celtavian]

The default rules support healer-less play just fine.

I prefer a grittier (but slower encounter per in game day) style, so I do not use the default rules. My PC's recover no hit points during a long rest unless they are at a plot designated safe point (an Inn for example). Each long rest they recover con mod HD (minimum 1). It's working fine so far, if it scales poorly I will re-visit. Two members of the party are capable of healing (ranger, bard) but neither functions as a dedicated healer. In combat healing, or indeed even stabilization, appears to be considered, at best, a last resort option.


P.S. If you do not wish to discuss something, then do not make it the basis of your argument.

No. They do not. You must be playing a very low level game or very soft as DM. We can't even manage three or four encounters at level 7 without a healer. Not sure how you're managing unless you're intentionally playing monsters poorly. Our DM isn't focus firing on single targets, we can barely keep up with damage.

Dragons with breath weapons, stone golems, packs of creatures with pack tactics and martial advantage, and giants chew through hit points like a buzz saw. Legendary creatures do ridiculous damage. If they focus fire, they can obliterate PCs within a few rounds.

You cannot play the default rules without a healer unless you are playing softer than the default recommendation. I wonder how many encounters you're running a day. I also wonder how you are playing the enemies. I wonder what level you have reached.

We have a life cleric dedicated to healing, we're still getting hammered quite hard. Our DM isn't playing the monsters as cruel as is possible either.

 

[Celtavian]

Thank you for, finally, re-defining the premise to eliminate social dependantcy.

The base rules support healer-less healing (through rests, potions and DM throttling of the encounter pace).

The published adventures less so, although this is to be expected as the majority of published adventures tend to railroad at a set (standard) encounter pace. They also tend to have certain plot points that must be achieved in order to continue; and often assume (are tuned for) a relatively standard party composition (role wise).

Three obvious ways for a DM to tune such publications for a healer-less party are to modify the adventure (parts that railroad the party into tank and spank style encounters; parts that don't advance the story but sap resources; parts that only allow for brute force resolution), increase the availability of potions/item based healing, or re-tune specific encounters.

I would mostly do nothing (maybe skip some of the filler), and let the party’s tactics play themselves out.

All this says is that the default rules do not support healer-less healing. They say the DM must heavily modify the game by toning it down heavily to support healer-less healing.

I guess those are your recommendations.

 

[Celtavian]

Agreed. I feel that design flaw is there, though.

I was hoping for a game that didn't require a healer. Alas 5th edition is not that game. We tried it at lower levels. It didn't work. It hasn't become any easier as we leveled up. There's too many monster special abilities that cause spike damage. Crits from minion level enemies with special abilities like martial advantage can crush the hit points of any save for perhaps the barbarian.

I guess for better or worse even 5th edition was built with the standard D&D paradigm in mind. Even when we played 4th edition, we needed a healer. Monsters hit too hard. As a DM it makes no sense to allow players to engage in long (or sometimes short) rests in a dungeon led by an active villain. Not having a healer when the villain takes proactive measures to eliminate the PCs as a threat is a recipe for lots of character making.

Gotta have that healer to make the game go. I at least wish 5th edition wouldn't have made the cleric the hands down superior healer. I'd at least like more options for viable healer even at high levels. It seems like at the highest levels, no mass healing is going to hurt with legendary creatures that do massive AoE damage on their own turn, then hit the party for more AoE damage on their lair or legendary action. It was slightly disappointing aspect of 5th edition I hope would have changed.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I at least wish 5th edition wouldn't have made the cleric the hands down superior healer.

I'm not convinced the bard isn't as good a healer as the cleric, if he's chosen spells in that direction. Otherwise, though, I agree with your experience--the party in the game I'm running now would've been dead several times over without the healing-focused cleric.