D&D 5E The Return of the HealBot

[VinylTap]

but then you have a problem where WOTC wants you to have an "adventuring day" and not resetting after every encounter.

 

[pemerton]

You don't need a TPK situation to make players feel like their resources are being tested.

Straight healing is one of the least interesting ways of handling player damage. Debuffs, buffs, strategic positioning, bottle necks, scenery, just 'not getting hurt at all' are all more interesting way to get players to deal with it.

This is an empirical claim, and there's a wide range of RPGs against which we can test it. And the outcomes of that test will probably be different for different testers, who have different preferences.

For my own part, I think active defence is interesting in a system like Rolemaster or HARP (where you allocate attack and parry each round from a common pool) but less interesting in Runequest (where each PC has a fixed attack percentage and a fixed parry percentage). 4e has persuaded me that PCs being hit is often more interesting than PCs being constantly missed, because a result of being hit is movement, conditions etc which change or raise the stakes. But a system whose dynamics rely on the PCs being hit will probably need in-combat healing (as 4e generally does).

In my view, the big problem with attrition as the stakes of combat is that (i) it is boring until the last fight is actually taking place, and (ii) it can fail to generate the requisite stakes if the players get to decide whether or not their PCs engage in any given combat.

I can think of at least one way to reconcile no in-combat healing with dynamic combat - design a system in which NPCs, monsters and PCs have a reason to use (non-damaging) pushes, grapples etc instead of damaging attacks. (Burning Wheel has a degree of this to its combat system.) But that would be something of a change to D&D combat.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I'm just here to post a relevant link...

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/855

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

The thing about herbalism that I don't like is that it use campaign based ressources (gold) to heal. This create situations where if you have unlimited cash you can heal to full when you want but if you don't have cash it's not much healing (it's easier to wait). The solution is to nearly remove all the gold cost of herbalism but limit it by day (assuming we stay within a daily paradigm of ressources). You can just say that these potions need the power of the alechemist to work and he can only make 2 per day maximum (or 1, depending on balance, etc). If you make a 3rd one, the first stop working, etc. Then the alchemist feat is basically allowing someone to be an off-healer and reduce the burden on having a cleric in theory.

Why is it bad to use what you describe as a campaign-based resource? The handing out of gold is in the hands of the GM, and the availability of the herbs and spices such that are required for healing rituals is also determined by the GM. If you saw my suggested rituals on the previous page, I also limited their use to once per person per battle, to represent more of a first aid effect than a method to heal all. This sort of healing is the most easily accessible, you're not giving up feats and the burden is shared across the party.

 

[VinylTap]

This is an empirical claim, and there's a wide range of RPGs against which we can test it. And the outcomes of that test will probably be different for different testers, who have different preferences.

For my own part, I think active defence is interesting in a system like Rolemaster or HARP (where you allocate attack and parry each round from a common pool) but less interesting in Runequest (where each PC has a fixed attack percentage and a fixed parry percentage). 4e has persuaded me that PCs being hit is often more interesting than PCs being constantly missed, because a result of being hit is movement, conditions etc which change or raise the stakes. But a system whose dynamics rely on the PCs being hit will probably need in-combat healing (as 4e generally does).

In my view, the big problem with attrition as the stakes of combat is that (i) it is boring until the last fight is actually taking place, and (ii) it can fail to generate the requisite stakes if the players get to decide whether or not their PCs engage in any given combat.

I can think of at least one way to reconcile no in-combat healing with dynamic combat - design a system in which NPCs, monsters and PCs have a reason to use (non-damaging) pushes, grapples etc instead of damaging attacks. (Burning Wheel has a degree of this to its combat system.) But that would be something of a change to D&D combat.

I'm not arguing with any of your points, but what I'm worried about is the farther you go down this path, the more you build the 'healer' into a necessary part of the system. I realize there are people out there who like to heal-- but i don't think its enough to support every gaming group out there. I think you can build a fun healing system into the game-- but you have to be careful about it. All I'm saying is there should be options. The game should be playable with any group (within reason, but i think no cleric is well within reason), because the likely hood of no one wanting to play a healer is substantial enough to come up often.

There's pro-active healing and active healing, there should be enough options for either style to work spread across an average array of PC's. Proactive healing might slow down combat a bit, as people take a turn or two lay down debuffs and buffs, but its a far better solution than binding your system to an active healing mechanic, imo. You should avoid, at all costs, situations where players are forced to fill rolls they have no interest in filling.

I enjoy gritty play, I like the idea of the group hitting the BBEG with <50 health. It makes them terrified. My ideal system makes players manage their resources over several encounters so that they strive to have as many of them left for the big tough fight at the end. If you can top everyone off to max just before the last encounter you suck a lot of the tension out of it. Obviously this is personal preference in the system, but I can't see why arguing for less options makes a better system.

 

[bbjore]

A lot of people have suggested other ways to prevent the need for the healbot such as reactive abilities or ways that reduce damage. These are all good ideas and worthy of addition to the game.

But it's important to remember, that one of the primary reasons you need healing, is you need a way to cover up for problems and mistakes. Using non-recovery methods is great, but different players will pay different prices in a battle, and without recover methods you end up with three players at 80% strength, and two at 10-15%.

Healing is a way to equalize attrition between PCs, so the party can continue on. I don't think the cleric should be a healbot, but the game does need good recovery mechanics to do that.

 

[eprieur]

I think the main point is that in combat healing is dangerous. If it's strong enough, then it's required or you are gimping the party. If it's weak to the point it's not really usefull, then you could be gimping the healer class instead.

My suggestion is that no matter the daily/encounter/whatever paradigm, if you create a solid class (cleric/shaman/druid/paladin, etc) that could theorically stand on it's own without heals but then heals are part of the package I think you have something good. In my opinion you have to make sure that the heal part of the package cannot be the whole package or you have instantly created an healbot.

Leaders in general or cleric in particular in 4.0 were ok in that regard I feel. Clerics were powerfull and you knew they had heals but you could replace the cleric by a multitude of other options and still have a non gimpy viable party.

I also think Next is going in the opposite direction and the current incarnation lead directly into healbot.

And probably worse then the healbot is the fact that at least at low level, I don't think the class can even stand on it's own without the heals. The spells kinda suck and are boring compared to the wizard.