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

[The Crimson Binome]

Healing in combat is a 3e thing because the monsters hit so much more often and so much harder than their AD&D counterparts due to the idea of CR=4 PC's of a given level. A troll in AD&D maxes out at about 25 points of damage, if it hits every time. A 3e troll has twice the HP, a better AC and maxes out at over 50 points of damage if it hits 3 times. IOW, a 2e troll has to fight for 2 or 3 rounds before it can whittle a PC down to single HP. A 3e troll can flat out kill a 5th level PC in a single round.

A lot of it might be that 3E started to standardize things a lot more, and they standardized around the idea that "above average" characters were about average for PCs. In 3E, you could reasonably expect that your PCs would have a Con bonus to HP at each level, where older editions would vary wildly from table to table. (Also, since they flattened out the ability modifiers, you would get more from having a 14 or 16 than you would under the old methods.)

In my experience, an AD&D troll would kill a 5th level PC in 1-2 rounds, because few PCs had more than 4-5 hp per level and they were probably going to hit with at least two attacks. If you had better stats, or more magic items, then it could easily tip the scale in the other direction.

 

[Hussar]

Two hits from a troll would do about ten points of damage. Sure, if the troll is focusing on a single PC he might drop him in two rounds.

However, a 5th level fighter type is likely going to be in negative AC territory, meaning the troll is very likely hitting less than 50%. The odds that the troll will hit four out of six times is pretty low. Never minding that against a standard six to eight member party, that troll will likely not survive more than two rounds, particularly if the Unearthed Arcana is in play and certain not in 2e.

Pc's were not that much weaker in ad&d than 3e at low levels, dealt FAR more damage and were hit considerably less. Ad&d characters in single digit levels are a lot more powerful than 3e characters.

 

[MoonSong]

Since when is "healer" a role? The history of the game never defaulted to that. Cleric's were much more than just "healers", or, at least, in AD&D they were. They were second to fighters in term of melee damage and, at higher levels, got some of the most destructive spells in the game. Wizards got nothing like Earthquake which could bring down small towns in a single spell.

Never minding the fact that there was a HUGE gap between 1st level and 4th level spells where you got no new healing spells at all. Sure, your 1st level slots were probably all cure light wounds (or at least mostly) but, 2nd and 3rd level spells were buff and whatnot spells. It wasn't until you hit 7th level before you got another healing spell at all.

Plus, in AD&D, you rarely, if ever, healed in combat. It just wasn't worth dumping a straight d8 HP on someone. The monsters did so little damage relative to PC HP and hit so rarely, that you generally, outside of about 1-3rd level, were rarely going to hit single digit HP in a given fight. There was no reason to heal in combat. It wasn't necessary. So, healing was almost universally out of combat, allowing the cleric to act as a front line fighter during combat. IOW, the cleric was rarely, if ever, giving up actions to heal.

Healing in combat is a 3e thing because the monsters hit so much more often and so much harder than their AD&D counterparts due to the idea of CR=4 PC's of a given level. A troll in AD&D maxes out at about 25 points of damage, if it hits every time. A 3e troll has twice the HP, a better AC and maxes out at over 50 points of damage if it hits 3 times. IOW, a 2e troll has to fight for 2 or 3 rounds before it can whittle a PC down to single HP. A 3e troll can flat out kill a 5th level PC in a single round.

Well, I can only speak from experience, all I know is I feel useful as a healer in 2e and 3.5 and that I never found any kind of hostility before I tried 4e, I keep getting this argument about how pure healing is a new thing and stuff, but I just don't get it, that it didn't spring fully formed out of the mind of G Gygax and probably wasn't in the original incarnation that was played way back before I was born or my parents even knew each other doesn't invalidate my experiences. I don't really know all of the numbers behind it, all I know is I have never bothered to prepare overtly offensive spells when playing a cleric, or gone that high in level.

 

[Hussar]

Well, I can only speak from experience, all I know is I feel useful as a healer in 2e and 3.5 and that I never found any kind of hostility before I tried 4e, I keep getting this argument about how pure healing is a new thing and stuff, but I just don't get it, that it didn't spring fully formed out of the mind of G Gygax and probably wasn't in the original incarnation that was played way back before I was born or my parents even knew each other doesn't invalidate my experiences. I don't really know all of the numbers behind it, all I know is I have never bothered to prepare overtly offensive spells when playing a cleric, or gone that high in level.

And bully for you. But, the fact still remains that there was nothing in the AD&D rules that actually pushed you to be "the healer" outside of casting 1st level spells. And, it's pretty unlikely that in 2e you were doing healing in combat - which is the issue being discussed. Out of combat? Who cares? It's not like you're using actions at that point. There's no action economy outside of initiative.

Let me try another way. Create a 2e PHB cleric at 6th level that does nothing but healing. It can be done, sure, but, there's an awful lot of pretty useful spells at 2nd and 3rd level (prayer was a good one, negative plane protection was 3rd wasn't it?, so on and so forth) that people can pick if they want. It's not like you have to pick nothing but cure disease for your third level spells.

And, if clerics were meant to be pure healers, why give them the best armour and the second best weapon proficiencies in the game? And the second best attack matrix? Doesn't that kind of point to the idea that clerics aren't really meant to be pure healers? Again, I'm not saying you can't play that way. That's your choice. But, you certainly don't have to. I loved playing clerics for exactly that reason. The healing was there, but, it was the other stuff that made clerics shine for me.

As far as 4e goes, well, the hostility, as has been mentioned numerous times, is entirely on you. There are a number of pure healer builds for 4e that would satisfy exactly what you want. you can't complain about hostility in the rules set if you choose to ignore the options in front of you. The 4e cleric, as the second line tank, is hardly something new to the game and would be easily recognizable back in the day as well.

You have to understand that just because you have chosen a fairly idiosyncratic interpretation of the class that ignores large swaths of the actual mechanics of that class, doesn't mean that everyone else has come to the same conclusions that you have. Even in 3e, clerics were not intended as "pure healers". Good grief, why would a pure healer need the best AC, second best attacks, and just about the best saves in the game, never minding about a third of his spells are directly offensive spells. There's a reason there's a C in CoDzilla. It's not for healer clerics.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And, if clerics were meant to be pure healers, why give them the best armour and the second best weapon proficiencies in the game? And the second best attack matrix?

They need the best armor because healing spells have a touch range, requiring them to be in melee. They are tied for second-best weapons along with the theif, who is capable of using one-handed swords. Their to-hit chance is similar to the theif in that, while it progresses more quickly, they don't get that huge +4 bonus to striking from behind.

At least, that's how I read it. You could also play it that a priest is like a warrior, who sacrifices some small combat bonuses for some small out-of-combat benefits. Either way.

 

[Zardnaar]

In my experience with Basic and AD&D, it's not much of a simplification that Con bonuses and Dex bonuses weren't factored into monster stats, because it was fairly unlikely that any PC would have such either. The suggested character-gen method was 3d6 down the line, and you needed a significantly high roll before anything started giving you a bonus, and the game honestly didn't care if you were a fighter with only 1 HP.

We played B/X last year and rolled 3d6. We had max hp at level 1 though. 1 PC got 3 +1 scorers, one got an 18 and some got a 16 (+2 modifier).

The PC who got 3 +1 (13-15 range) was not gimped in any significant way. The 18 character was a fighter and it gave him +3 to hit and damage with a sword, the Thief took +1 dex/con/str.

Stat arrays tend to lead to cookie cuter character and in 5E that means a lot of int and cha dump stats.

 

[Hussar]

They need the best armor because healing spells have a touch range, requiring them to be in melee. They are tied for second-best weapons along with the theif, who is capable of using one-handed swords. Their to-hit chance is similar to the theif in that, while it progresses more quickly, they don't get that huge +4 bonus to striking from behind.

At least, that's how I read it. You could also play it that a priest is like a warrior, who sacrifices some small combat bonuses for some small out-of-combat benefits. Either way.

Note, you got that +4 when striking from behind AND the opponent didn't know you were there. Hardly something that actually comes up that often. It's not like 3e sneak attack where you only needed to flank. And, additionally our cleric got more HP than the thief. So, our cleric is out AC'ing the thief, out damaging the thief on a consistent basis and has more HP. In what way is an AD&D thief an equal combatant to the cleric?

Again, healing in combat was almost never done in AD&D because it was generally never needed. It was vastly more productive to heal after combat. Heck, surf back through this thread and you'll see [MENTION=717]JRRNeiklot[/MENTION] saying exactly the same thing, and I'm fairly sure that he's got a fair bit more experience with earlier D&D than both of us put together. He's absolutely right though, in combat healing was very, very uncommon. Why would you bother most of the time? That 4 HP wasn't going to make any difference by and large anyway. And, until you hit at least 7th level, the maximum you could heal in a single round was 8 points. When monster generally topped out at about 40 HP or so, it was far better to beat on the baddie than heal someone. it certainly wasn't something that you would do every combat.

But, this is also missing the point somewhat. KaiiLurker is talking about a pure healer. A character that is almost zero combat ability but heals the best. This never existed in D&D unless you make some pretty specific choices and ignore a significant slice of the abilities of the character. And, even if you did that, you were still only an 8 hour rest away from being one of the two most powerful classes in 3e. In earlier editions, clerics were hardly a slouch either. There's a reason that clerics need almost as much xp as a fighter and far, far more xp than a thief. It's because the class was considered more powerful and more durable. That's how the xp tables worked.

 

[Joe Liker]

Like I said, the difference between the healer role and the others is needing the others in the party to achieve anything. But if the party needs you less than you need them, then you aren't contributing, you are a load, you are leeching of their success and the less polite members of the party won't let you forget it until you build a killing cleric with enough DPS that still keeps them healed or give up and leave the game for another edition where you are more welcome.

If this is even remotely the case, the problem is with your group, not the rules. First, because they are rude on a nearly sociopathic level, and second because they are wrong about the value of your contribution.

That said, there was a mechanical problem in 4e whereby a certain build of cleric slowed every combat to a crawl, and if that was their complaint then I cannot fault them. But that was a build that sprang up only after Divine Power was released; it was not an issue in the core game. Fourth edition combat was already somewhat draggy, and the Pacifist Cleric amplified the problem immensely -- but that is not the case in 5e.

Healing will always -- almost by definition -- have the effect of making combat encounters take longer, and that is probably something you need to be aware of if you say you enjoy being a healer. The more you focus on healing, the longer combat encounters will take, and not everyone is going to appreciate that. The effect is lessened in larger parties, if that helps you feel better.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But, this is also missing the point somewhat. KaiiLurker is talking about a pure healer. A character that is almost zero combat ability but heals the best. This never existed in D&D unless you make some pretty specific choices and ignore a significant slice of the abilities of the character. And, even if you did that, you were still only an 8 hour rest away from being one of the two most powerful classes in 3e.

There was the Healer class, which came out at the tail end of 3.0 and was designed to be 3.5 compatible. In case you've blocked it out, it was like a Cleric with an extremely limited spell list and bad BAB and light armor. These were balanced with 1) All of the status cure spells as 1/day spell-like abilities, to free up your slots; 2) +CHA modifier to healing done, so you could actually get 4-5 HP out of your Cure Minor Wounds; 3) A unicorn companion, with its own set of cure spells and a Magic Circle Against Evil, and wielding its own horn as a +3 lance.

Aside from that, I've never seen a class that had enough meaningful spell slots that using one every round would be an efficient use of resources. The Healer squeaks by as a passable pure-healer at low levels, because Cure Minor Wounds is capable of off-setting 1-2 hits from a kobold, where a PC can only withstand 2-3 hits before dropping. Beyond that, you only have enough slots to active-heal some of the time, and are mostly dead weight in less-challenging encounters.

Of course, you might also find yourself in situations where you need to throw everything into healing, just to keep the party alive. An action spent with your highest-level Cure spell could completely negate the attacks of an enemy for a round, and is often a better use of action than trying to possibly hit an enemy with strong defenses for a meager amount of damage. Two Fireballs from an at-level enemy spellcaster could lead to a TPK, so it's entirely probable that throwing out a Mass Cure Wounds would be the difference between everyone living and everyone dying.

 

[MoonSong]

And bully for you. But, the fact still remains that there was nothing in the AD&D rules that actually pushed you to be "the healer" outside of casting 1st level spells. And, it's pretty unlikely that in 2e you were doing healing in combat - which is the issue being discussed. Out of combat? Who cares? It's not like you're using actions at that point. There's no action economy outside of initiative.

But there wasn't anything to push you into not being the healer. And healing in combat being less optimal doesn't make it impossible nor rare. 2e has a lot of variation in how rounds work depending on the DM and the options in use, and the choice to heal or not to heal is mine not what the system says.

Let me try another way. Create a 2e PHB cleric at 6th level that does nothing but healing. It can be done, sure, but, there's an awful lot of pretty useful spells at 2nd and 3rd level (prayer was a good one, negative plane protection was 3rd wasn't it?, so on and so forth) that people can pick if they want. It's not like you have to pick nothing but cure disease for your third level spells.

But nothing prevents you either.

As far as 4e goes, well, the hostility, as has been mentioned numerous times, is entirely on you. There are a number of pure healer builds for 4e that would satisfy exactly what you want. you can't complain about hostility in the rules set if you choose to ignore the options in front of you. The 4e cleric, as the second line tank, is hardly something new to the game and would be easily recognizable back in the day as well.

But it forces you to be a not healer, and the rounds being that long puts your actions under scrutiny from other players. The closest thing I can remmeber is a lazy warlord, I still don't see any cleric that don't need to hurt others to buff and heal.

But, this is also missing the point somewhat. KaiiLurker is talking about a pure healer. A character that is almost zero combat ability but heals the best. This never existed in D&D unless you make some pretty specific choices and ignore a significant slice of the abilities of the character.

Well, the "heals the best" part is not necessarily true, when I say pure healer I mean without being a killer. Alpha healing is just a plus.

And, even if you did that, you were still only an 8 hour rest away from being one of the two most powerful classes in 3e. In earlier editions, clerics were hardly a slouch either. There's a reason that clerics need almost as much xp as a fighter and far, far more xp than a thief. It's because the class was considered more powerful and more durable. That's how the xp tables worked.

That's why in 3.x I prefer the Favored Soul/Oracle and the aptly named Healer class. More creed and more believable. But even then, I could always project the image of not being that kind of ugly cleric.

If this is even remotely the case, the problem is with your group, not the rules. First, because they are rude on a nearly sociopathic level, and second because they are wrong about the value of your contribution.

Not that they were that bad, a lot of it was more subtle. But noticing you are hurting the party instead of helping it is not nice.

That said, there was a mechanical problem in 4e whereby a certain build of cleric slowed every combat to a crawl, and if that was their complaint then I cannot fault them. But that was a build that sprang up only after Divine Power was released; it was not an issue in the core game. Fourth edition combat was already somewhat draggy, and the Pacifist Cleric amplified the problem immensely -- but that is not the case in 5e.

Healing will always -- almost by definition -- have the effect of making combat encounters take longer, and that is probably something you need to be aware of if you say you enjoy being a healer. The more you focus on healing, the longer combat encounters will take, and not everyone is going to appreciate that. The effect is lessened in larger parties, if that helps you feel better.

The length of combat is also an issue, but the system dictating "attack and heal" as the standard doesn't help. What 5e removed was helping the party to full as a goal by taking you out of the picture for it altogether and making it a certainty. I will miss it. but that is a compromise I can make.