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

[The Crimson Binome]

The more of this conversation I read, the more exacting the specifications of the so-called "healer" become.

It's sounding more and more like a role we're better off without, and one I'm glad did not make it into the core of 5e -- at least not in the extreme incarnation certain players seem to be looking for.

I never knew that there was such a controversy over what a healer was. I mean, everyone's played Final Fantasy and stuff, right? You always get the character who heals and buffs and doesn't attack anyone. Or, if they do attack someone, it's because you're just beating up some goblins and it doesn't matter, and they'd be just as well off by defending for the round, for what little the contribute. The white mage. The healer. The medic.

I get that some people don't like being that character, and it should be optional. We're just saying that 4E went too far, and made it impossible, where it was at least nominally possible in earlier editions. The question remains of how to make that optional, without it being so effective as to become mandatory.

 

[MechaPilot]

What is happening in your mind when you use your hit dice to recover? You can use them any short rest you feel like. The healing can be substantial. No magic is going on?

In my mind, what happens when you spend HDs is the same list of possibilities that you could use for spending healing surges in 4e:

A caster who can heal magically heals you (just using your HDs as a resource instead of her spell slots).
The PCs bind their wounds so they can keep fighting, but the wounds are still there.
The PCs recover any non-meat losses such as luck, fatigue, morale, or divine grace.

 

[Hussar]

I never knew that there was such a controversy over what a healer was. I mean, everyone's played Final Fantasy and stuff, right? You always get the character who heals and buffs and doesn't attack anyone. Or, if they do attack someone, it's because you're just beating up some goblins and it doesn't matter, and they'd be just as well off by defending for the round, for what little the contribute. The white mage. The healer. The medic.

I get that some people don't like being that character, and it should be optional. We're just saying that 4E went too far, and made it impossible, where it was at least nominally possible in earlier editions. The question remains of how to make that optional, without it being so effective as to become mandatory.

The problem is, the goalposts get put on rollerskates. Every single example will just be brushed off as "not quite fitting". I mean, a character that is dealing zero damage and granting HP when another character hits the target isn't good enough We now have to deal zero damage and have zero input towards combat? Yes, you can create this thing in 3e, and only 3e, but, it certainly was never part of D&D outside of a very specific class or some very specific chargen choices.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The problem is, the goalposts get put on rollerskates. Every single example will just be brushed off as "not quite fitting". I mean, a character that is dealing zero damage and granting HP when another character hits the target isn't good enough We now have to deal zero damage and have zero input towards combat? Yes, you can create this thing in 3e, and only 3e, but, it certainly was never part of D&D outside of a very specific class or some very specific chargen choices.

You could create it in 2E, though you'd spend a lot of your time just standing around in the back and waiting for people to get hurt. Priests did gain bonus spells for high Wisdom, after all, and it's as likely (or moreso) that you'd have a high-Wisdom priest as a high-Strength one.

Does it really seem weird that we'd make a distinction between giving an ally +2 to hit, or giving an enemy -2 AC? Do you not get how it feels way different?

 

[Hussar]

You could create it in 2E, though you'd spend a lot of your time just standing around in the back and waiting for people to get hurt. Priests did gain bonus spells for high Wisdom, after all, and it's as likely (or moreso) that you'd have a high-Wisdom priest as a high-Strength one.

Does it really seem weird that we'd make a distinction between giving an ally +2 to hit, or giving an enemy -2 AC? Do you not get how it feels way different?

In 2e, sure, you got bonus spells for wisdom, but, THERE WEREN'T ANY HEALING SPELLS TO CAST. Sorry for the all caps, but, that's the third or fourth time I've had to state that. There simply were not any healing spells at 2nd and 3rd level. You got your cure light wounds, but, until 7th level, you go no other actual direct healing spells. Unless you flat out refused to cast anything, you'd be very hard pressed to make a pure healer in AD&D.

As far as feel goes, well, to be honest, that's on you. If you get a "way different" feel from "You get +2 to hit that creature" and "That creature's AC is reduced by 2" then, well, it's going to a pretty uphill battle to help you. Mostly because 4e, unlike earlier editions, had more than just AC defenses. There's a significant mechanical difference in 4e between those two. My warlock almost never attacked AC. Almost always made Will attacks, as he was a Faelock and used mostly mental attacks. So, that particular debuff would not benefit my character at all, although I would still gain HP from the attack.

And, note, this was a single example. I think a lazy warlord would fit the bill even better. Commander's Strike means your healer never actually has to make a direct attack. Ever. You actually can stand behind and buff and heal. Done and done.

To be fair, it's pretty hard to make such a laser beam focused character in 4e than in 3e. It was easier to make a "pure" healer in 3e, I'll certainly grant that. But, not impossible in 4e.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In 2e, sure, you got bonus spells for wisdom, but, THERE WEREN'T ANY HEALING SPELLS TO CAST. Sorry for the all caps, but, that's the third or fourth time I've had to state that. There simply were not any healing spells at 2nd and 3rd level. You got your cure light wounds, but, until 7th level, you go no other actual direct healing spells. Unless you flat out refused to cast anything, you'd be very hard pressed to make a pure healer in AD&D.

I came late into the edition, so we did have the supplements that added Cure Moderate Wounds (Tome of Magic, maybe?). But I'm pretty sure you could still prepare your Cure Light Wounds in your 2 and 3 slots. It wasn't terrible. Of course, there were also no encounter guidelines (unless you were actually going down into a dungeon), so whether or not a Cure Light Wounds meant anything when you were level 5 might vary. And then, there were also buff spells, your Prayer and whatnot.

As far as feel goes, well, to be honest, that's on you. If you get a "way different" feel from "You get +2 to hit that creature" and "That creature's AC is reduced by 2" then, well, it's going to a pretty uphill battle to help you. Mostly because 4e, unlike earlier editions, had more than just AC defenses. There's a significant mechanical difference in 4e between those two.

Yes, that's what we're saying. We don't like this aspect of 4E, because it requires the healer to make attack rolls against enemies in order to buff allies, and that just feels wrong. Maybe if the older editions had started that way, and a later edition changed it so you could heal without needing to succeed on an attack roll, we'd be less jaded about it. As it stands, though, healing magic that just works has become the established baseline.

 

[Hussar]

I came late into the edition, so we did have the supplements that added Cure Moderate Wounds (Tome of Magic, maybe?). But I'm pretty sure you could still prepare your Cure Light Wounds in your 2 and 3 slots. It wasn't terrible. Of course, there were also no encounter guidelines (unless you were actually going down into a dungeon), so whether or not a Cure Light Wounds meant anything when you were level 5 might vary. And then, there were also buff spells, your Prayer and whatnot.

No, you couldn't. That's a 3e addition that you could prepare lower level spells in higher level slots. And, sure, you could cast lots of buff spells. But, apparently, that's not good enough for a "pure healer" since we've seen that lazy warlord isn't a valid option.

Yes, that's what we're saying. We don't like this aspect of 4E, because it requires the healer to make attack rolls against enemies in order to buff allies, and that just feels wrong. Maybe if the older editions had started that way, and a later edition changed it so you could heal without needing to succeed on an attack roll, we'd be less jaded about it. As it stands, though, healing magic that just works has become the established baseline.

The only difference here is that enemies get saving throws. Or rather defences against debuffs. Note, you still had healing that didn't need rolls. Healing word and (I'm drawing a blank what the warlord healing is called) don't need any rolls at all and were available at least twice per combat. Remember, in 4e, there is no need for out of combat healing at all. 4e is a direct descendent of 3e here in the idea that in combat healing is a thing. AD&D didn't bother, largely at all, because it just wasn't worth healing in combat. The number of times you'd actually have to do it was very rare, certainly a lot less than once or twice per combat.

3e ratcheted up the power of the monsters, so, in combat healing becomes an issue. 4e simply took that idea and ran with it.

I guess my question becomes, why do the base rules need to encompass such a niche concept? This is a pretty corner case character concept that only really exists in 3e. Is there really that big of a need for it?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I guess my question becomes, why do the base rules need to encompass such a niche concept? This is a pretty corner case character concept that only really exists in 3e. Is there really that big of a need for it?

I'm not convinced that it's a niche concept. Media, particularly in video games, has been saturated with the healer archetype since at least the mid-1980s. People come into the game with the expectation that you can play a healer.

When you start a new campaign, it's pretty common that you would discuss who wants to be the healer. At that point, with the whole party relying on you, it's fairly common for someone to actually make a healer. Healers are a cornerstone of the game, in every edition except one. It's the opposite of a niche concept. It is a fundamental expectation of the premise.

 

[Hussar]

I'm not convinced that it's a niche concept. Media, particularly in video games, has been saturated with the healer archetype since at least the mid-1980s. People come into the game with the expectation that you can play a healer.

When you start a new campaign, it's pretty common that you would discuss who wants to be the healer. At that point, with the whole party relying on you, it's fairly common for someone to actually make a healer. Healers are a cornerstone of the game, in every edition except one. It's the opposite of a niche concept. It is a fundamental expectation of the premise.

Outside of Final Fantasy, is that really true? Sure, you had the White Mage (although, to be honest, I've only played a tiny little bit of Final Fantasy a VERY long time ago). Healer archetype from the mid 80's? What would that be? The Gold Box D&D games didn't have that. AD&D certainly didn't have the archetype. So, where is the archetype coming from?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Outside of Final Fantasy, is that really true? Sure, you had the White Mage (although, to be honest, I've only played a tiny little bit of Final Fantasy a VERY long time ago). Healer archetype from the mid 80's? What would that be? The Gold Box D&D games didn't have that. AD&D certainly didn't have the archetype. So, where is the archetype coming from?

Final Fantasy was kind of a big deal. There was also Dragon Quest, of course, and Phantasy Star. Most console RPGs throughout the 80s and 90s, really.

Of course, it did all start with D&D, which more-or-less single-handedly popularized the concept of healing spells in the first place. The archetype has been around since, at the very latest, whenever Legends & Lore came out - as soon as there were variant priests, such that some could be depicted as more healer-y and others were more fighter-y.