The missing Role: speculation on Healing rules

[Irda Ranger]

Defender
Leader
Striker
Controller

That's it. Those are the four roles. Presumably if you have one of each, you can expect to play any published adventure with no further ado.

What's interesting to me is the role that's missing: Healer. Because presumably you can play 4e with a Warlord or one of the subsequent Leaders surely to come in future splat books or PHB's, and no one will be forced to hear the dreaded "C'mon Bob, play a Cleric - someone's got to." There will be no more drawing of straws.

As I see it, there are two alternatives:
1. Anyone can Heal.
2. No one needs to Heal. PC's just "get better" on their own.

#1 will be acceptable as long as significant resources don't have to be invested into the Heal skill, or Healing feats, or whatever. Because then you've just substituted "C'mon, someone play the Cleric" for "C'mon, someone take the Heal feat." But I'm not sure I like this approach, because it's kind of weird that you can heal wounds and conditions without any particular training.

#2 would solve the problem presented by "Cleric syndrome" and alternative choice #1, but it seems weird that PC's could just recover from anything, given time, without spells like Cure Disease and Restoration. Lycanthropy or a Mummy's curse just doesn't feel right unless its incurable short of powerful magics.

In both cases my desire for verisimilitude is conflicting with my gamism.

I think the solution will be a combination of #1 and #2: Any spellcaster can Heal + faster natural recovery. Surely someone in a D&D group will play some type of spellcaster of one stripe or another (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard ...); so as long as any of them can help the really nasties that ail you, and if you recover from "just HP loss" ("Bah, but a scratch.") quickly and without supervision, I think the game will play well without unduly burdening anyone with the role of Medic.

Your thoughts?

 

[The Little Raven]

What's interesting to me is the role that's missing: Healer.

They've made it pretty clear that the healer has been subsumed into the Leader. That's the character who keeps everyone going when they should be laying down and dying, whether it's from divine healing, or such inspiration that pushes you well beyond your limits.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It will be very interesting to see how 4e handles condition cures - curse, disease, stat loss and the like.

We know Second Wind is in the game, a 1/day ability all PCs have which enables self-healing. We know clerics can heal also, from the dragon combat example. I think I read somewhere that the cleric will be the best healer but I'm not 100% certain.

 

[Paraxis]

I can see a few things happening.

>Everyone can get a "second wind" by spending an action point and taking an action this will heal you by X amount, and can only be done when you are bloodied.
>Divine Power Source characters of all roles get a healing touch that heals X(maybe level) points of damage per round up till you are no longer bloodied.
>Skill use can heal damage past bloodied but takes longer then spells do, so in a game with no actual divine caster you still recover hit points past the mid-way point.
>Most healing spells are per encounter based (in addition to healing touch above that is at will) but those spells heal for alot more, maybe based on the level of the target.
>Faster natural recovery time of hitpoints.

All of the above or some combination there seems to work for what I imagine the goal for healing is in 4E.

 

[med stud]

I think healing is bound to the role but to the class; for example, paladins as (presumably) divine defenders probably have some kind of healing talent tree with the initial talent being healing wounds and further talents being curing diseases, lifting curses etc. This way, characters of any role may be able to heal.

I suspect, though, that powerful healing is within the realms of divine spells.

What I would want is for healing that is needed on the spot (for example HP) is spread out among classes and being relatively easy to access while curses and death etc is relegated to powerful magic. If you get cursed during an adventure you can generally finish the adventure and find a NPC for lifting the curse. If you are brought down to 5 HP that is another matter...

 

[Goken100]

I rather thought that the Warlord would have some non-spellcasting healing stuff. Just as we were told the that Cleric "gets a surge of healing power" (ug) when dealing a critical, so too might the Warlord heal in unorthodox ways. Perhaps superior leadership allows the reduction of damage at the time of injury. Perhaps organizational prowess improves healing rates over time (hey it makes as much sense as a "surge of healing power"). Note: I don't necessarily support this idea, I just find it likely.

I disagree that the Paladin will be all that potent a healer. The Paladin would be unable to fulfill its role as a Defender if it had powers that also qualify it as a "Leader".

 

[TheSeer]

Defender
Leader
Striker
Controller

That's it. Those are the four roles. Presumably if you have one of each, you can expect to play any published adventure with no further ado.

What's interesting to me is the role that's missing: Healer. Because presumably you can play 4e with a Warlord or one of the subsequent Leaders surely to come in future splat books or PHB's, and no one will be forced to hear the dreaded "C'mon Bob, play a Cleric - someone's got to." There will be no more drawing of straws.

As I see it, there are two alternatives:
1. Anyone can Heal.
2. No one needs to Heal. PC's just "get better" on their own.

#1 will be acceptable as long as significant resources don't have to be invested into the Heal skill, or Healing feats, or whatever. Because then you've just substituted "C'mon, someone play the Cleric" for "C'mon, someone take the Heal feat." But I'm not sure I like this approach, because it's kind of weird that you can heal wounds and conditions without any particular training.

#2 would solve the problem presented by "Cleric syndrome" and alternative choice #1, but it seems weird that PC's could just recover from anything, given time, without spells like Cure Disease and Restoration. Lycanthropy or a Mummy's curse just doesn't feel right unless its incurable short of powerful magics.

In both cases my desire for verisimilitude is conflicting with my gamism.

I think the solution will be a combination of #1 and #2: Any spellcaster can Heal + faster natural recovery. Surely someone in a D&D group will play some type of spellcaster of one stripe or another (Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard ...); so as long as any of them can help the really nasties that ail you, and if you recover from "just HP loss" ("Bah, but a scratch.") quickly and without supervision, I think the game will play well without unduly burdening anyone with the role of Medic.

Your thoughts?

How about this: There is no "Healer" role because rather than just being a walking band-aid the cleric will fill one of the other roles AND heal. Their main job will no longer just be a healer, but, for example, a Leader who heals. From other things we have seen WoTC say, that fits in with the way they have been thinking.

 

[Paraxis]

I am not sure Leader=Healing.

I think if anything Divine Power Source=Healing is more likely.

But then again I have no reason to think that either.

Ok Leader does = Healer.

From the 4E information page.

Roles such as the "leader", into which the warlord and cleric fall [and, presumably, bard, if that class makes it in], won't require the character to stand around doing nothing but making other people better (through songs, or healing), but rather will gain access to those abilities in addition to actions he or she might want to take. Lead designer Rob Heinsoo on PC roles: "Unlike their 3e counterparts, every Leader class in the new edition is designed to provide their ally-benefits and healing powers without having to use so many of their own actions in the group-caretaker mode. A cleric who wants to spend all their actions selflessly will eventually be able to accomplish that, but a cleric who wants to mix it up in melee or fight from the back rank with holy words and holy symbol attacks won’t constantly be forced to put aside their damage-dealing intentions. A certain amount of healing flows from the Leader classes even when they opt to focus on slaying their enemies directly."

So looks like healing will just happen almost constantly, maybe like the Marshall class or Dragon Shaman from 3E.

 

[alaric]

How about this: There is no "Healer" role because rather than just being a walking band-aid the cleric will fill one of the other roles AND heal. Their main job will no longer just be a healer, but, for example, a Leader who heals. From other things we have seen WoTC say, that fits in with the way they have been thinking.

That doesn't seem to be what they are doing though. The purpose of the roles in the first place is to solve the "who's playing the cleric" problem, and during the early discussion there was a quote that went something like "players should never be punished for doing their roles, clerics shouldn't be punished for healing". If they did do something like this, where healer isn't a role, then you are back to what the OP was saying, how do you guarentee heals without a healer, or are healers not mandatory anymore?

 

[Goken100]

I am not sure Leader=Healing.

Ok Leader does = Healer.

So looks like healing will just happen almost constantly, maybe like the Marshall class or Dragon Shawman from 3E.

Heh, I knew I'd gotten that impression from somewhere. So like I said, Warlords will heal too. Not as much as Clerics no doubt, and hopefully in totally different ways, but some.