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

[MoonSong]

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.

I don't think it is that easy, how could you design a game where healer wasn't needed but still useful and fun as a healer, but no so much it turns mandatory and thus a no win for groups that want no healer, but still fun enough for the healer player and in a way that doesn't steal fun from the party? <this is a rhetoric question>

One of the two options has to be baked to a certain extent or nobody really gets to have fun, without that choice adventure writing requires aiming for a narrow sweet spot, one that is entirely subjective. Even if it was successful, how long until such a narrow band becomes repetitive?.

I believe the designers erred for ease of play and the path of less resistance (the four role party). This is a no-win situation for the designers, catering to two contradictory demands is impossible, they had to decide or compromise as much as it was needed or useful. But those choices aren't really design flaws, they had to choose or we'd have an unplayable mess. (And, no I'm not really happy with the setup, I feel the healer role is already diluted in 5e with overnight healing and self healing)

 

[Ahrimon]

I don't know what the folks here want anymore. Option after option for how to do a game that doesn't require a healer has been presented in this thread but every time they're dismissed as "obvious" or why would I do that. Short of kidnapping a designers and having them re-write the game just for them, I don't think they'll ever be satisfied.

 

[Emerikol]

If the game does require a healer, and I'm not disputing those who say so I personally don't know as I haven't played it yet, then why did they ignore an entire playstyle and force rapid non-magical healing in as the default? If it doesn't remove the need for a cleric then they really have no reason to force this upon everyone.

 

[Celtavian]

If the game does require a healer, and I'm not disputing those who say so I personally don't know as I haven't played it yet, then why did they ignore an entire playstyle and force rapid non-magical healing in as the default? If it doesn't remove the need for a cleric then they really have no reason to force this upon everyone.

Rapid non-magical healing isn't the default. Not sure why you think that. The only rapid non-magical healing in the game is second wind. Everything else requires an action and is magical in some form.

If you take the Healer Feat you can use the Healer's Kit to heal someone in a non-magical way. It works once between rests.

Not sure where you're getting your info from. That isn't the case.

 

[pemerton]

According to this conversation, that game was apparently D&D pre-3E, since priests were primarily warriors and healing was generally an out-of-combat thing. When 3E made in-combat healing viable, it caused combat to slow down.

When an unlucky hit could kill a character outright - because the game design didn't care about whether a character lived or died - combat would progress very quickly.

I don't think this is quite right, though. In AD&D and B/X monstes tend to have weaker ACs than PCs; tend to have fewer hit points than PCs (eg fighters have d10 hp and CON bonuses); and tend to have less access to spells and magic items (spike damage, control effects, etc) than PCs.

So your hypothesis of symmetry between the PCs and their enemies does not hold up, at least in my experience.

I don't think it is that easy, how could you design a game where healer wasn't needed but still useful and fun as a healer, but no so much it turns mandatory and thus a no win for groups that want no healer, but still fun enough for the healer player and in a way that doesn't steal fun from the party?

You havent explained why a healer is, in this respect, any different from an archer, an illusionist, a diviner, etc.

If the group doesn't have a healer then that player will be playing a different PC; and it is the contribution made by that different PC (eg in dealing more damage, devliering more battlefield control, etc) that will obviate the need for a healer. My 4e group doesn't have a full-time healer: there is a hybrid cleric (one Healng Word per encounter, compared to the 3 per encounter that a full healer would have), a paladin with 5 lay on hands per day, and a dwarf. But they cope fine with encounters of up to level +5 or 6, because they have other capabilities to bring to bear (eg three controllers via an invoker, a polearm fighter and a control-focused sorcerer).

I don't see why you think the healer role is unique in having to be indispensible to be useful.

 

[Remathilis]

Rapid non-magical healing isn't the default. Not sure why you think that. The only rapid non-magical healing in the game is second wind. Everything else requires an action and is magical in some form.

If you take the Healer Feat you can use the Healer's Kit to heal someone in a non-magical way. It works once between rests.

Not sure where you're getting your info from. That isn't the case.

He is short handing hit dice, which allows some healing between fights without magic. Emerikol wants NO natural healing except at the bare minimum in long rests; not aware he can just remove HD, slow long rest hp to 1/level, and change second wind to temp hp and take no more effort than it took me to construct this sentence.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't think it is that easy, how could you design a game where healer wasn't needed but still useful and fun as a healer, but no so much it turns mandatory and thus a no win for groups that want no healer, but still fun enough for the healer player and in a way that doesn't steal fun from the party? <this is a rhetoric question>

No, this is the actual question I am asking!

Except for one thing:

Since this would be an optional rule for groups who don't want to play healers, there is absolutely no requirement that a healer must remain as useful and fun as in a standard game.

Quite the opposite, in fact. The entire premise is that what makes healers "fun and useful" is that they're obligatory, and it is specifically this I want to get rid of.

So:

1) If you find it fun to play a healer, play a standard game where they are useful to the point of being mandatory. The "mandatoriness" isn't a problem if you already want to play one, after all. Please feel free to not post this, however.

2) If you already view healers as non-essential, then you don't have the problem I have. Simply play with or without one, according to your preferences. Again, your post isn't required. Thank you.

3) If you do feel a healer is required, but don't see this as a problem, good for you. Nothing to see here... and thank you for not telling me this.

but

4) If you agree the healing power of a character shouldering the healer role is a must, and you're interested in exploring ways to tweak the game so a healer isn't needed in order to provide this healing, then I'm interested in hearing your thoughts!

That is, the actual healing needs to remain available to the characters. But no single character should feel compelled to take more than his or her share of "healing actions".

 

[CapnZapp]

Forgive me if this has been suggested--I've read the whole thread, but it's hard to keep track.

Why not just put cure wounds (and a few others, like restoration) on every spell list? That way, healing's spread out more, and lots of characters can take care of themselves. Unless you have a magic-lite party, nobody has to take on the bulk of the healing duties.

Because that would mean a standard Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard party would gain access to double the healing power. Which is too much.

And, indeed, a Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue party would still not work, just as you suspect.

Ideally, the optional tweak we're exploring here should work equally well for all party compositions. All parties need healing, after all.

Giving ALL characters Cure Wound spells is a poor solution too, I think, for several reasons:
* too much healing, as above
* it doesn't sit right with me to make purely martial characters dependent on magic spells

I guess you could make it work by reducing everybody's magic to 25%, but at that point why not take advantage of the fuzzy nature of hit points and simply hand that out as natural healing? Some variant of healing surges (as already discussed) would then have the added benefit of allowing martials to recover their own hit points, but not "magically" help others.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, and one more thing.

Since this would be an optional rule for groups who don't want to play healers, there is absolutely no requirement that a healer must remain as useful and fun as in a standard game.

Do note I said healer above. Not cleric (or bard, or druid, etc).

Since the assumption is that the players will cherish not having to take healing actions, playing a cleric (the class, not the role) is fine.

In fact, more than fine! You may recall that one of my stated goals for any rules option would be to enable a player to play a Cleric with no obligation or pressure (stated or unstated) to actually use their healing powers.

Getting to play a Cleric that could focus entirely on all the other cool powers of the class will be awesome!

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't know what the folks here want anymore. Option after option for how to do a game that doesn't require a healer has been presented in this thread but every time they're dismissed as "obvious" or why would I do that.

Oh sorry. Let me bring you up to speed.

The single most promising rules option (at least in my mind) revolves around healing surges. Specifically, my post:

(click the little blue arrows button above for the actual post)

At least so far!

What do YOU think? Do you see any hidden pitfalls about this option? Do you have a cleverer suggestion?