Is a healer necessary

[lytokk]

So, I've only ever really played 3.5 and am about to get into a 5th edition game. I'm wondering, with the new short rest system combined with regaining all hit points on a long rest, is having a healer really necessary anymore? The group is talking about what classes they would like to play, and I said that I would play some sort of healer if it was needed, but I don't know if it's actually needed. So far we've got a guy who wants to play a rogue, my wife who wants to play a warlock, and another guy who's a little more up in the air. Evocation specced wizard, or some sort of monk/cleric multiclass, or if we will be running evil a LE paladin.

[coredump]

Having at least *some* healing is nice, but that is easily met. I don't find you need a dedicated healer.

[SharkForce]

as mentioned, it helps, but is not as necessary as in 3.x D&D.

but just as an example, if you have a person with the healer feat and a person with the inspiring leader feat, that will likely do more healing than a typical healer through most of the game.

[DireSickFish]

Healing potions are 50gp a pop, use those to bring people back to consciousness. Have a medicine kit so that you can stabilize people in the field and you should be all set.

In combat healing is only really good to get people back in the fight. You don't need healing just be mindful of short rests and how many hit die everyone has left.

[Ninja_Prawn]

In combat healing is only really good to get people back in the fight.

A bard with Healing Word is basically the gold standard of minimalist healing.

[PhantomRenegade]

Yeah you don't really need a healer, you can just go into a party without such concerns, if you find the party menbers going down a lot (and you don't have a ranger) the healer feat will be more than enough to keep you going from short rest to short rest, particularly if you have a thief rogue.

[kaoskonfety]

I'd argue its never been "necessary" - handy yes.

VERY handy in 1st and 2nd ed with the rules they had for natural healing rate, an adventure (or one bad fight) could leave the fighter resting for weeks into months. 3rd ed throttled it back a bit, you could get by, but you still "wanted" a heal bot.

With the rest mechanics, hit dice on short rests, full heal on long and healer kits for stabilization the "Handy" is slowly getting into somewhere between "occasionally good to have" and "a questionable use of resources that could have been spent elsewhere".

A good healer will never be an outright waste in a 5th ed game (even dedicated Life clerics with a fairly full roster of healing options have more than healing they can be doing round by round just with how they are designed). But they are well short of "an important piece needed in every successful party" you saw in 1st to 3rd.

Honestly the main pull I've seen for Life clerics in this edition is that *because* you are so good at healing you do it less overall, freeing up spell slots/actions for hold person and other "preventative measures" healing.

You will feel the absence of a magic healer, but you won't suffer from it (much) until you get into bigger/badder status ailments you want restoration and similar for.

[Ashrym]

It's good to have healing but not necessary to have a dedicated healer.

Getting someone up from 0 or removing status effects are the most common things a person might see. A paladin with lay on hands does a bang up job, or a ranger with cure wounds and lesser restoration works. Just a character with the healer feat and possibly medicine skill to treat ailments and symptoms pretty much can cover it.

Healing word comes up because it can be done at range for those PC's who hit 0 hp.

If you have a bard who takes healing abilities, paladin who steps up for more healing, or druids and clerics to cover more then you are usually ahead of the game but most of their spells and abilities don't need to be used for healing either. The spells used are for emergencies that would come up less often with an alternative to taking damage, like more controlling effects or killing enemies faster.

Smart money says have something for back up, just in case, but dedicated healing not so much.

2cp

[Celcey]

A healer is good to have, but not necessary. There are, however, many options for healers, so you're not restricted to being a cleric if you want to heal (although within cleric, there are plenty of options so you're not ju a healbot). Bards, Druids, Rangers, and Paladins can all heal perfectly well.

[ruy343]

As everyone else has said, having a healer isn't necessary, but you'll feel it at times.

When are those times? The most important/frequent time to have a healer is in mid-combat when a player goes down. Being able to cast a first level spell to put a player back on their feet is likely to be the most important thing that a healer can do.

[In a sense, if you're worried about how much damage you deal with a spell, bear in mind that a healing spell deals the target character's attack damage every round in place of the static 3d6 damage from a first level spell: with a few rounds, you'll far outpace your normal spell's damage maximum if you're playing smart and keeping them alive. That's economy!]

Come classes/domains are really good at it (particularly the life cleric). However, a character can just take the Magic Initiate feat and pick up healing word for once/day use at range, which can be a great boon to the party.

However, in my experience, players don't need to worry too much about healing in play because, as was said above, most parties have characters that have additional healing benefits on the side. It's not like they chose the healer life, the healer life incidentally chose them.

[coredump]

My favorite 'unexpected' healer is a Roguethief with Healer feat and Healing kit.

1D6+4+targetHD HP as a *bonus* action.

[Safety Sword]

Whether you need a healer or not is very dependent on the type of campaign you play and the DM you have.

If you're using the standard resting rules and your DM is allowing safe places to sleep at night (no random encouters to interrupt rest) then you can get by without a healer. You will have more hairy in-combat moments and some fights will end with someone on the ground, dying (but not necessarily dead).

Most parties will require some healing support. How you achieve that doesn't really matter.

[MarkTriumphant]

My favorite 'unexpected' healer is a Roguethief with Healer feat and Healing kit.

1D6+4+targetHD HP as a *bonus* action.

I'm missing something here - how does that work? The Rogue Cunning Action only allows Dash, Disengage or Hide.

[PhantomRenegade]

Thief has the ability fast hands which expands the use of cunning action to also encompass thieves tools checks, sleight of hand checks and use an object, allowing you to use the healers kit as your main and/or bonus action.

[holygroundj]

I concur. Healing has been neccessary in my game, but a specific healer has not been. That said, we have both a druid and a bard, and they have gotten us through some sticky situations.

[Steampunkette]

Yes and No.

Hit point healers aren't needed, but can be super useful.

But someone who can remove status effects is dang near -mandatory-.

[Giant2005]

I played a game where none of the characters had any means of healing. It wasn't too pleasant.
Healing might seem pretty unnecessary but without it, attrition is a serious issue. In-combat healing isn't hugely important but replenishing HP post-battle is.
Clerics however are kind of sucky when it comes to post-battle healing. You really want a Paladin or Bard with Aura of Vitality so you don't have to devote too much in the way of resources into healing.

[hymer]

@ OP: First level is going to take an awful lot of stopping for rests if you don't have someone who can heal hit points. It's as swingy as ever, and without external healing, someone knocked down to 0 hp takes 1d4 hours to regain 1 hp. People without at least 1 hp cannot benefit from long rests. Short rests are slightly less iffy, if the DM will let unconscious characters take them. Still, at levels one and two, you only regain hp from one short rest per day.

All in all, you'll definitely feel it if you don't have someone able to heal hp. And in-combat healing is still a thing, of course.

@ Giant2005: I can't believe it, shadowmonk'ed in a ~19 hours old thread! Here, have some vanishing powder on me.

[lytokk]

Well right now I've got a human paladin rolled out if we don't get anyone else into the healer role. I'd honestly rather play that eldritch knight fighter, but with my wife playing a tiefling warlock, I think there'd be some better RP between her character and a paladin.

[lytokk]

Also, what should I take to have a decent level 1 pally healer? I get the one feat for playing human, and I had picked up the Shield master feat, mostly for the shield to dexterity saving throws.

[hymer]

Well, the Healer feat is the obvious answer...? You can get by without it, though. Heavy Armor Master is pretty darn good at level 1, and Shield Master is really good for sword-and-boarders (shove people prone and hammer them).

[Ninja_Prawn]

Also, what should I take to have a decent level 1 pally healer? I get the one feat for playing human, and I had picked up the Shield master feat, mostly for the shield to dexterity saving throws.

Well, the higher your Cha mod, the more spells you can prepare - so you'll have more room for healing/defense. If you've got an odd Cha score, consider a half-feat.

The Healer feat is cool, but a paladin's Lay on Hands covers you in that department.

[Socko525]

With a good Charisma stat you may want to look into Inspiring Leader as well. Those extra temporary hit points can mean a lot at lower levels, and it scales fairly well.

[Inevitability]

The group I am in has a paladin as their sole healer, which works out more or less alright. The lack of heals do mean that people tend to go down towards the end of fights, though.

At higher levels, you should have enough gold to just buy a few dozen healing potions and use those for backup healing.

[Person_Man]

Depends on the DM.

If the DM lets the players control the pace of combat, then having a healer is not necessary.

If the DM sets up a "beat the clock" scenario, or places players at the bottom of the world's largest dungeon, or frequently uses wandering monsters when players try to Rest outside of town, then yes, having a healing can basically be mandatory, unless players are willing to focus heavily on Stealth, careful exploration, and roleplaying, in order to avoid combat.

And obviously there is a lot of gray area in between.

[The Shadowdove]

Is is when you play with all of the optional healing rules in the DMG. Suddenly anything relevant to healing is something you praise your comrades for having on board.

[Slipperychicken]

I think healing is important to a balanced party. Ideally, you want someone with Healing Word (or similar) to get people back on their feet without blowing whole turn for it, and also help top them off after a short rest. A lot of classes can heal while contributing in other ways, so it's not like you have to be a walking band-aid.

[Ashrym]

I played a game where none of the characters had any means of healing. It wasn't too pleasant.
Healing might seem pretty unnecessary but without it, attrition is a serious issue. In-combat healing isn't hugely important but replenishing HP post-battle is.
Clerics however are kind of sucky when it comes to post-battle healing. You really want a Paladin or Bard with Aura of Vitality so you don't have to devote too much in the way of resources into healing.

Prayer of healing is good out of combat healing. It heals more total hit points than aura of vitality and has the advantage of scaling into a higher level slot.

It also becomes available at 3rd level instead of 9th level when a paladin might cast aura of vitality twice in a day.

The only advantage aura of vitality has is that the caster has more control where the hit points go.

By the time a paladin has access to his out of combat healing spell, a cleric has access to mass cure wounds, raise dead, more slots, is approaching the heal spell for in or out of combat healing, and has already had prayer of healing for 6 levels.

A bard might get access to aura of vitality sooner but still 3 levels behind a cleric with prayer of healing. Even later than a paladin on a valor bard and still looking at using secrets for it.

What does the party do in the meantime if it's important?

Based on that reasoning, I disagree on the cleric sucking at after combat healing. The cleric will be using prayer of healing while the other 2 listed choices will not have a similar option for several levels.


Thief has the ability fast hands which expands the use of cunning action to also encompass thieves tools checks, sleight of hand checks and use an object, allowing you to use the healers kit as your main and/or bonus action.

The healing benefit doesn't apply to fast hands RAW. The ability to use a healer's kit to bring someone from 0 to 1 hp works, but the wording on the other aspect of the feat states "use an action to...." instead of "use a healer's kit to...." so it's not actually using the item for the effect. The healer's kit cost is an an additional cost listed after the action requirement.

Some people interpret the intent based on the healer kit cost but some DM's interpret it more strictly, so advice to the OP on fast hands is check first on the DM ruling.

[Vogonjeltz]

So, I've only ever really played 3.5 and am about to get into a 5th edition game. I'm wondering, with the new short rest system combined with regaining all hit points on a long rest, is having a healer really necessary anymore? The group is talking about what classes they would like to play, and I said that I would play some sort of healer if it was needed, but I don't know if it's actually needed. So far we've got a guy who wants to play a rogue, my wife who wants to play a warlock, and another guy who's a little more up in the air. Evocation specced wizard, or some sort of monk/cleric multiclass, or if we will be running evil a LE paladin.

It's definitely not required. With Hit Dice for short rests and total recovery of hit points on long rests the only benefit of a class with healing magic is for roleplaying opportunities (heal a mortally wounded NPC) or in combat healing or the extremely rare situation where it's not possible to short rest. And even the in combat healing can be supplanted by potions of healing or the use of a healers kit.

[The DS Acolyte]

I find that at my table healers have been a godsend.
My players were having a rough time without one and there came a point where they were fighting a mini boss about 60% of the way into a dungeon and we had 2 out of 3 players die due to some poor rolls and the third just BARELY made it out with his life. So one of the 2 dead players came in as a cleric and now they have been doing incredibly well keeping themselves upright.

All that being said, I as a DM don't hand out short rests very often In the wild/dungeons and when I do I roll to see if they are attacked in the middle of it...

[Fable Wright]

All that being said, I as a DM don't hand out short rests very often In the wild/dungeons and when I do I roll to see if they are attacked in the middle of it...

You don't allow your players' characters to break for lunch or supper in the wilderness, take the time to skin a kill to smoke for later, or take a break while the scout climbs a tree to survey the land while the party plans its next move? Or, say, to close and lock the door in a dungeon room so they can patch their wounds and expend hit dice, or to identify and attune magic items after a fight? That seems arbitrary and punitive, and extremely punishing to Monks, Warlocks, and other short rest characters.

[hymer]

All that being said, I as a DM don't hand out short rests very often In the wild/dungeons and when I do I roll to see if they are attacked in the middle of it...

I think most tables have the players decide when to rest, not the DM. As DMofDarkness points out, it seems heavyhanded and unfair.

[Giant2005]

I think most tables have the players decide when to rest, not the DM. As DMofDarkness points out, it seems heavyhanded and unfair.

I don't think he meant it to sound as absolute as it did.
As you said, the players decide when their characters will rest and that applies to all tables even if a DM wishes otherwise. The only time that wouldn't be true is if the players didn't have control over their own characters for some reason but at that point they aren't players but spectators to the game that the DM is playing by himself.
I think what The DS Acolyte meant is that he doesn't often just give the players risk-free rests and when in dangerous circumstances there is a risk of random encounters if the characters decided to park up and relax in the middle of a hostile environment.

[Slipperychicken]

You don't allow your players' characters to break for lunch or supper in the wilderness, take the time to skin killed to smoke for later, or take a break while the scout climbs a tree to survey the land while the party plans its next move? Or, say, to close and lock the door in a dungeon room so they can patch their wounds and expend hit dice, or to identify and attune magic items after a fight? That seems arbitrary and punitive, and extremely punishing to Monks, Warlocks, and other short rest characters.

Even if the DM doesn't like the idea of the party stopping for lunch, it's pretty hard to say no to a short rest when most of the PCs are sitting on bedrolls in the back of a carriage or wagon.

[kaoskonfety]

Even if the DM doesn't like the idea of the party stopping for lunch, it's pretty hard to say no to a short rest when most of the PCs are sitting on bedrolls in the back of a carriage or wagon.

NO REST FOR YOU! Stirges attack! Roll initiative!

45 minutes... GOBLINS!

45 minutes... KOBOLDS!

45 minutes... BANDITS!

45 minutes... BEES!


I've always found the idea that the wilderness is FULL of danger a bit silly - a couple *encounters* a day sure, but if your random wilderness checks are occurring more than once an hour and are fairly likely it happen most of your table had better be "herd of terrified deer" or "a fox" or "3 otters playing" rather than "1-6 owlbears" (bears do not hunt in packs, owls do not hunt in packs - why do owlbears hunt in packs?)

[DireSickFish]

NO REST FOR YOU! Stirges attack! Roll initiative!

45 minutes... GOBLINS!

45 minutes... KOBOLDS!

45 minutes... BANDITS!

45 minutes... BEES!


I've always found the idea that the wilderness is FULL of danger a bit silly - a couple *encounters* a day sure, but if your random wilderness checks are occurring more than once an hour and are fairly likely it happen most of your table had better be "herd of terrified deer" or "a fox" or "3 otters playing" rather than "1-6 owlbears" (bears do not hunt in packs, owls do not hunt in packs - why do owlbears hunt in packs?)

I was agreeing with you until you got to Owlbears. There is always room for more Owlbears in any game. Any game can be improved by adding more Owlbears. I try to make sure I have at least 1 Owlbear encounter per campaign.

[SharkForce]

I was agreeing with you until you got to Owlbears. There is always room for more Owlbears in any game. Any game can be improved by adding more Owlbears. I try to make sure I have at least 1 Owlbear encounter per campaign.

but this isn't about owlbears per campaign, this is about your daily recommended intake of owlbears. 1-6 owlbears 3 times per day is likely to cause an overdose.

[djreynolds]

Yes, because it gives you confidence to stay and fight. Having someone who can poor on the band aids if needed, when it's bad, gives you mojo. No one is gonna breach the door if the doctors at the hospital do it part time. Paladins and bards can do it well, but I need them kicking but sometimes.

[mephnick]

We've found that a paladin and some healing potions work well enough, even though I use longer rest times.

[Ninja_Prawn]

but this isn't about owlbears per campaign, this is about your daily recommended intake of owlbears. 1-6 owlbears 3 times per day is likely to cause an overdose.

Ah, but there's a simple cure for Owlbear overdose: 1d4 Wyverns, three times a day (before meals).

[Slipperychicken]

I've always found the idea that the wilderness is FULL of danger a bit silly - a couple *encounters* a day sure, but if your random wilderness checks are occurring more than once an hour and are fairly likely it happen most of your table had better be "herd of terrified deer" or "a fox" or "3 otters playing" rather than "1-6 owlbears" (bears do not hunt in packs, owls do not hunt in packs - why do owlbears hunt in packs?)

There could also be separate rolls for disposition. So you might have bugbears every five minutes, but most wouldn't feel like attacking the party on sight. Some might even be helpful, giving directions, advice, or trading with the party.

[The DS Acolyte]

I don't think he meant it to sound as absolute as it did.
As you said, the players decide when their characters will rest and that applies to all tables even if a DM wishes otherwise. The only time that wouldn't be true is if the players didn't have control over their own characters for some reason but at that point they aren't players but spectators to the game that the DM is playing by himself.
I think what The DS Acolyte meant is that he doesn't often just give the players risk-free rests and when in dangerous circumstances there is a risk of random encounters if the characters decided to park up and relax in the middle of a hostile environment.

This exactly

I probably should have been more clear

To clarify I mean that when short rests are in high demand my party is usually in an incredibly bad place to stop and take a nap

My player really like my personal system for rolling for random encounters what I do is roll a d20 in front of them and inform them what the threat range is for a random encounter

So it goes as follows
"Let's see if anything nasty stumbles upon you while you're licking your wounds" (suspense) (roll d20) then they get a sigh of relief or a feeling of dread depending on the outcome

[Safety Sword]

This exactly

I probably should have been more clear

To clarify I mean that when short rests are in high demand my party is usually in an incredibly bad place to stop and take a nap

My player really like my personal system for rolling for random encounters what I do is roll a d20 in front of them and inform them what the threat range is for a random encounter

So it goes as follows
"Let's see if anything nasty stumbles upon you while you're licking your wounds" (suspense) (roll d20) then they get a sigh of relief or a feeling of dread depending on the outcome

I usually let my players roll a dice on their watch and determine random encounters happening if they roll a set of numbers pre-determined by the location.

For example, the party rests in the "Swamp of You're Dead If You Rest Here, Don't be Stupid". I have determined that there is a 25% random encounter chance per 2 hour watch that a nasty thing tries to eat their faces off. Players roll and if they get 1 - 5 on their d20 the face eating begins. I give rangers the opportunity to shine here by modifying the party die rolls by making hiding spots, covering tracks, dampening scents etc.

I do it this way so that they can't blame me for interrupting their rest, they curse their die instead.

[cobaltstarfire]

I agree it depends on the DM's and players.

The games I've played, having at least some minor healing is necessary, partially because we often roll really bad to regen HP. Potions are handy too, but not very easy to come by in our game.

It really helps when you're in a pinch, such as when you're trying to chase down the villain and he keeps hurling fireballs at your party, or when you're in an area where there's a chance of having your rest interrupted.


We've never used healers kits, and even if we did, the GM switched us to variant encumbrances, so we can't actually carry them without being punished, or without having to drop a more useful piece of gear.

All that said we don't have a dedicated healer, sometimes the druid will toss some heals around, very rarely my fighter/cleric might toss one to pick someone up mid fight, or to top someone off who's seriously bloodied and couldn't regain a liveable number of HP during a rest.

[1Forge]

If you play a more realistic campaign (like me) then yes you do. (in ours you dont heal all your hp unless you wait a week, and long rests = regular short rests)

[djreynolds]

I guess it's party make up. But a cleric allows paladins to focus on laying it down during combat and bards to inspire. The cleric can fight too, but he's the primary healer. Obviously with all the experience presented you can get away without one, but its dangerous and players know the risks. Sometimes parties split up and your bard goes out with the ranger and rogue to scout. The paladin and bard go negotiating. Sometimes the cleric and wizard can't keep up or the cleric is protecting the squishies, whose gonna fix the rogue up. The paladin is, or the bard. Clerics are fun to play, but paladins and bards are cooler.

[dafrca]

Regardless of the need for a healer, it is always good to have one. I have never played in a game where we were sorry we had one in the party and I have played in several games where we had wished we had one at one point or another.

I will concede that 5e makes this less of an issue, but I stand by the thought, it never hurts to have one. :smallbiggrin:

[TheOOB]

It should be noted, healing is the least efficient way to keep your party alive, both by resources expended and action economy. Preventing damage, either through defensive or offensive abilities, is preferable. That said having some healing is important because you can't prevent all damage, and with rare exception you can always use magical healing(whereas that shield spell might not work against that lightning bolt).

You don't need a "healer", and someone who focuses entirely on healing is not playing to the best of their ability(yes even life clerics should use many or even the majority of their spell slots on things other than healing). That said, the more "squishy" party members you have, the more scarce magic items are, the more weird enemy types your DM throws at you, and the more dangerous resting is in a campaign the more you need healing.

[Giant2005]

It should be noted, healing is the least efficient way to keep your party alive, both by resources expended and action economy. Preventing damage, either through defensive or offensive abilities, is preferable.
I'm not saying you are wrong, as it is impossible to know either way, but I disagree with this quite emphatically.
If you do your damage mitigation re-actively via healing, you are only spending resources to mitigate the damage that actually needs mitigating.
If you do your damage mitigation pro-actively, you end up spending a lot of resources trying to mitigate damage that was never going to land anyway. It is essentially a gamble that may or may not pay off and in my experience, the house tends to win.

[TheOOB]

I'm not saying you are wrong, as it is impossible to know either way, but I disagree with this quite emphatically.
If you do your damage mitigation re-actively via healing, you are only spending resources to mitigate the damage that actually needs mitigating.
If you do your damage mitigation pro-actively, you end up spending a lot of resources trying to mitigate damage that was never going to land anyway. It is essentially a gamble that may or may not pay off and in my experience, the house tends to win.

If you can kill a foe or prevent multiple attacks with a single spell slot, it's going to be more effective than a cure spell. If a single casting of blindness stops two attacks that would each deal 10 damage, it's doing more than cure wounds would it the same slot, and the ceiling is much higher.

[Giant2005]

If you can kill a foe or prevent multiple attacks with a single spell slot, it's going to be more effective than a cure spell. If a single casting of blindness stops two attacks that would each deal 10 damage, it's doing more than cure wounds would it the same slot, and the ceiling is much higher.

Only if those attacks would actually inflict 10 damage in the first place. It is impossible to know if they are going to hit anything or not.
It could be that if you didn't use that fireball spell, your comrades would mop up the enemies before they had the chance to do much of anything anyway. It could be that the blindness spell did absolutely nothing because the initial roll wasn't going to hit anything anyway.
By using your spells proactively, you run the risk of wasting spell slots that really didn'yt need to be used at all. By using your spells reactively, you cut out the variable of the random and can be certain that each and every one of your spells are being used productively.

[Madeiner]

Only if those attacks would actually inflict 10 damage in the first place. It is impossible to know if they are going to hit anything or not.
It could be that if you didn't use that fireball spell, your comrades would mop up the enemies before they had the chance to do much of anything anyway. It could be that the blindness spell did absolutely nothing because the initial roll wasn't going to hit anything anyway.
By using your spells proactively, you run the risk of wasting spell slots that really didn'yt need to be used at all. By using your spells reactively, you cut out the variable of the random and can be certain that each and every one of your spells are being used productively.

Correct in theory only.

However, considering the numbers involved and average rolls, you are always better off without healing (unfortunately) unless absolutely necessary.
That's because healing output is much, much inferior to damage dealt.

I'd like a game where in combat healing was necessary to survive. To do that, monsters must be doing higher damage, enough that nobody cannot survive more than 1 or 2 rounds of beating and healing output must be increase to at least twice or thrice what is it now.
If you look at MMORPGs for example, player's healing output is usually (far) superior to damage dealt by enemies over an unit of time. This allows the healer to heal 50-70% of the times, and do something else the rest of the time.

If everyone can deal 10 damage, but only heal 1 per turn, you absolutely want to use your action to do damage, not heal.

[Giant2005]

Correct in theory only.

However, considering the numbers involved and average rolls, you are always better off without healing (unfortunately) unless absolutely necessary.
That's because healing output is much, much inferior to damage dealt.

I'd like a game where in combat healing was necessary to survive. To do that, monsters must be doing higher damage, enough that nobody cannot survive more than 1 or 2 rounds of beating and healing output must be increase to at least twice or thrice what is it now.
If you look at MMORPGs for example, player's healing output is usually (far) superior to damage dealt by enemies over an unit of time. This allows the healer to heal 50-70% of the times, and do something else the rest of the time.

If everyone can deal 10 damage, but only heal 1 per turn, you absolutely want to use your action to do damage, not heal.

That isn't entirely true either. I'm not really an advocate of in-combat healing but in extremely tough fights, it can be not only useful, but the most useful and economical thing you can do - you just need to make sure you are the right class and have th right spells before-hand.
A Lore Bard with Aura of Vitality can be a great in-combat healer. I wouldn't recommend trying to keep people at 100% health but it is great for keeping them above 0. It doesn't really matter how much damage the enemy inflicts once they are at that point - a single heal will bring them back up each and every time and can be done so 10 times from a single spell slot. It sure doesn't keep the guy healthy but it keeps him alive and productive.
But I was more referring to out-of-combat healing anyway. Unless you are a high-leveled party that just suffered an extremely grueling battle, that same single spell slot will typically heal everyone in the party back to full which imo is more effective than spending any number of spell slots trying to prevent that damage from coming in the first place (Although, I would tend to do both in play - be both proactive and reactive, unless I was low on spell slots).

[MarkTriumphant]

I'd like a game where in combat healing was necessary to survive. To do that, monsters must be doing higher damage, enough that nobody cannot survive more than 1 or 2 rounds of beating and healing output must be increase to at least twice or thrice what is it now.
If you look at MMORPGs for example, player's healing output is usually (far) superior to damage dealt by enemies over an unit of time. This allows the healer to heal 50-70% of the times, and do something else the rest of the time.

So you want to be playing 4th Edition, where in-combat healing is pretty much essential. I enjoy playing 4th, but the necessity for healing is one bit that I could have done without.

[Slipperychicken]

Only if those attacks would actually inflict 10 damage in the first place. It is impossible to know if they are going to hit anything or not.

This problem is solved with basic statistics. Just take the expected damage of all prevented attacks (chance of normal hit * average damage on normal hit)+(crit chance*crit dmg) and compare it to the damage healed with the heal spell. If the damage prevention is not certain, then multiply the expected damage value by the chance to prevent it. Then compare the two end values (expected damage prevention vs. expected healing) to decide which is better.

[SharkForce]

This problem is solved with basic statistics. Just take the expected damage of all prevented attacks (chance of normal hit * average damage on normal hit)+(crit chance*crit dmg) and compare it to the damage healed with the heal spell. If the damage prevention is not certain, then multiply the expected damage value by the chance to prevent it. Then compare the two end values (expected damage prevention vs. expected healing) to decide which is better.

i think he's trying to make the claim that since luck can invalidate your need for damage mitigation (that is, if you're lucky, everything will miss), healing is better.

not that i agree with him (it's theoretically possible, but not generally speaking reliable), but as far as i can tell, that's the position he's taking.

[Slipperychicken]

i think he's trying to make the claim that since luck can invalidate your need for damage mitigation (that is, if you're lucky, everything will miss), healing is better.

not that i agree with him (it's theoretically possible, but not generally speaking reliable), but as far as i can tell, that's the position he's taking.

The expected damage prevention value already takes luck into account through miss chances and such. It represents the damage which will be prevented on average, including scenarios where the enemies would have missed otherwise.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was agreeing with you until you got to Owlbears. There is always room for more Owlbears in any game. Any game can be improved by adding more Owlbears. I try to make sure I have at least 1 Owlbear encounter per campaign.Owlbears: the DM's bacon.

We have a possible t-shirt working here.

[KorvinStarmast]

It should be noted, healing is the least efficient way to keep your party alive, both by resources expended and action economy.
OK, so last night in a running fight with some giants and a hag, I kept two spell casters in the fight with three lvl 1 healing words.

one bard
one magician twice.

They went down and on my initiative my bonus action (after sacred flaming the bad guy) was to get him back into positive hit points.

And they stayed in the fight.

Having me stop fighting to do the medical kit/medicine would have hurt our action economy.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you can kill a foe or prevent multiple attacks with a single spell slot, it's going to be more effective than a cure spell.
News Bulletin: Bad guys get saving throws too.
The cure spell just works.

[LordVonDerp]

OK, so last night in a running fight with some giants and a hag, I kept two spell casters in the fight with three lvl 1 healing words.

one bard
one magician twice.

They went down and on my initiative my bonus action (after sacred flaming the bad guy) was to get him back into positive hit points.

And they stayed in the fight.

Having me stop fighting to do the medical kit/medicine would have hurt our action economy.

Well that explains a lot.

[KorvinStarmast]

So you want to be playing 4th Edition, where in-combat healing is pretty much essential. I enjoy playing 4th, but the necessity for healing is one bit that I could have done without.How strange. You'll be getting a visit from the Cleric's guild rep. (Multidenominational, and all dues paying. )

Let's see: Clerics and the healing function have been in the game structurally since inception. And you don't like it?

While it is nice to see that other classes get on the healing band wagon, keeping that specialty in the game means, oh dear, teamwork. Means playing a role.

Oh dear, I guess we can't have that.

(PS: cross game reference ... someone plays the roll of Support, and someone plays the Carry in LoL. This whole teamwork thing can be done, even in video games).

[Ashrym]

News Bulletin: Bad guys get saving throws too.

Not against sleep, and a DC 15 hypnotic pattern gets 2/3 to 3/4 of the creatures in the area at level 5 so preventing at least 5 actions in a group of enemies can easily be more advantageous than needing to cast mass healing word.

Leveraging spell slots is a thing. ;)

[djreynolds]

I think if you have both a paladin and bard, you can reasonably get by. Which shows just how good bards are now. I mean if no one wants to play a cleric, you could hire an NPC. But teamwork is key. Clerics make really good tanks. I think the question is can you get by without that "5th" character. The bard can do it, can tank too. Paladins can do a lot and so can warlocks. I like the Archer cleric.

[ImSAMazing]

So, I've only ever really played 3.5 and am about to get into a 5th edition game. I'm wondering, with the new short rest system combined with regaining all hit points on a long rest, is having a healer really necessary anymore? The group is talking about what classes they would like to play, and I said that I would play some sort of healer if it was needed, but I don't know if it's actually needed. So far we've got a guy who wants to play a rogue, my wife who wants to play a warlock, and another guy who's a little more up in the air. Evocation specced wizard, or some sort of monk/cleric multiclass, or if we will be running evil a LE paladin.
A paladin is fine.

[MarkTriumphant]

How strange. You'll be getting a visit from the Cleric's guild rep. (Multidenominational, and all dues paying. )

Let's see: Clerics and the healing function have been in the game structurally since inception. And you don't like it?

While it is nice to see that other classes get on the healing band wagon, keeping that specialty in the game means, oh dear, teamwork. Means playing a role.

Oh dear, I guess we can't have that.

(PS: cross game reference ... someone plays the roll of Support, and someone plays the Carry in LoL. This whole teamwork thing can be done, even in video games).

I'll ignore the snark, and explain further. In 4e it is necessary to have a healer in order to spend your own healing resources during combat. I have no problem with having a healer, I just found that the way it works in 4e is to use and improve your own healing resource (surges). It is strictly better to have a healer heal you than to just use a healing surge.

In 5e, the two are separate - you have the equivalent of surges in the form of Hit Dice, and then healing by a healer uses their resources, not mine. That means that it is not as necessary to use a healer (although it is always useful) except to keep someone alive during a combat.

I find that I prefer the 5e method, that 's all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Not against sleep,

Leveraging spell slots is a thing. ;)
While I agree on your last point, completely, have you actually used sleep in 5e? our Wizard has used it to generally underwhelming results.

[KorvinStarmast]

In 5e, the two are separate - you have the equivalent of surges in the form of Hit Dice, and then healing by a healer uses their resources, not mine. That means that it is not as necessary to use a healer (although it is always useful) except to keep someone alive during a combat.

I find that I prefer the 5e method, that 's all. Well said, and a previous post made the correct comment that if you have a bard and a paladin, you really don't need a cleric.

As to the snark, I was being just a bit silly, sorry if the tone didn't come across.

[MarkTriumphant]

As to the snark, I was being just a bit silly, sorry if the tone didn't come across.

No worries. I should be a bit less sensitive.

[Ashrym]

While I agree on your last point, completely, have you actually used sleep in 5e? our Wizard has used it to generally underwhelming results.

It's my main spell on my latest character with some backup options. It walks all over weaker monsters, which is a lot at low levels but hit points increase fast with CR's so it requires damaging them first an possibly finishing with sleep.

The alternative 1st-level spells for healing are cure wounds or healing word. Cure wounds risks taking opportunity attacks to get to someone in need or waits until after combat for 1d8+3 hp usually at low levels while healing word has range and keeps the action for 1d4+3 hp. It's not really questionable if sleep can prevent that amount of damage in lost attacks. Usually it's more of an issue not sleeping your own party because sleep is non-selective.

The campaign I joined a few weeks ago has us up to 5th level now and I am still using sleep. If it prevents 2 or 3 actions against the party it has been a better investment than cure wounds or healing word in a 1st-level slot.

I might keep it as a novelty toy later because it's become a bit situational already, but healing low level healing spells don't exactly scale well either. I have the healer feat on the character (lore bard, human variant) and don't plan on ever picking up a healing spell over controlling effects. I'm big on action denial over healing because it's more effective, in my experience, although there are some tempting out-of-combat healing spells that are tempting.

Edit: The benefits of sleep are no save AoE action denial with decent range, duration, and no concentration. No concentration is a big selling feature for spells that apply status effects. Bonus damage on the sleeping targets is a nice additional perk. The wizard you mentioned might need more experience on when to use it, perhaps. A closer instead of an opener, for example.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's my main spell on my latest character with some backup options. It walks all over weaker monsters, which is a lot at low levels but hit points increase fast with CR's so it requires damaging them first an possibly finishing with sleep.
We found that out as well, as we began working with that spell.

It's a good tip.

Frost Giant:
I'm tired of taking all this damage.

Mage:
Tired? here, let me help you sleep!

:smallbiggrin:

The larger issue is that if there are quite a few enemies, some of them can wake the sleepers up pretty quick ... well, that's how our DM runs it and it seem to fit the RAW:

Starting with the creature that has the lowest current hit points, each creature affected by this spell falls unconscious until the spell ends, the sleeper takes damage, or someone uses an action to shake or slap the
sleeper awake. Subtract each creature’s hit points from the total before moving on to the creature with the next lowest hit points. A creature’s hit points must be equal to or less than the remaining total for that creature to
be affected.
While that's one turn where the action is dedicated to waking up sleeping allies, the next round they are ready to take you on again.
That's what we found, anyway.

[Ashrym]

We found that out as well, as we began working with that spell.

It's a good tip.

Frost Giant:
I'm tired of taking all this damage.

Mage:
Tired? here, let me help you sleep!

:smallbiggrin:

The larger issue is that if there are quite a few enemies, some of them can wake the sleepers up pretty quick ... well, that's how our DM runs it and it seem to fit the RAW:

While that's one turn where the action is dedicated to waking up sleeping allies, the next round they are ready to take you on again.
That's what we found, anyway.

Right, but the sleeping targets lose actions while asleep and any targets choosing to wake them lose actions. The same thing happens with hypnotic pattern. It only takes a couple of lost attack actions to exceed

The fact they can end the condition isn't the important part. It's what they give up in doing so that matters.

Healing word for ~5.5 hp recovery or cure wounds for ~7.5 hp recovery ends up less than preventing a couple of hits. You're focus was on the status effect instead of what it had already accomplished.

If someone drops I miss healing word because as a bonus action at range that's a fantastic application of the spell and the healer feat has the same issues as cure wounds with range and possible movement needs (read triggering opportunity attacks). Eventually healing is needed despite our best intentions and that's why I have the feat. The difference is in how much is needed and the feat is better overall healing than spell slots can manage.

If I need to avoid opportunity attacks I can use dissonant whispers to trigger an attack and avoid an opportunity attack, move more safely, and use my action for the healer feat next round, but we don't have a lot of players dropping with a lot of controlling effects.

Sleep still works for me now but it is less effective and loses steam. I just use different spells at that point and my DC's have increased.

[KorvinStarmast]

Right, but the sleeping targets lose actions while asleep and any targets choosing to wake them lose actions. The same thing happens with hypnotic pattern. It only takes a couple of lost attack actions to exceed

The fact they can end the condition isn't the important part. It's what they give up in doing so that matters.

Healing word for ~5.5 hp recovery or cure wounds for ~7.5 hp recovery ends up less than preventing a couple of hits. You're focus was on the status effect instead of what it had already accomplished.

If someone drops I miss healing word because as a bonus action at range that's a fantastic application of the spell and the healer feat has the same issues as cure wounds with range and possible movement needs (read triggering opportunity attacks). Eventually healing is needed despite our best intentions and that's why I have the feat. The difference is in how much is needed and the feat is better overall healing than spell slots can manage.

If I need to avoid opportunity attacks I can use dissonant whispers to trigger an attack and avoid an opportunity attack, move more safely, and use my action for the healer feat next round, but we don't have a lot of players dropping with a lot of controlling effects.

Sleep still works for me now but it is less effective and loses steam. I just use different spells at that point and my DC's have increased.
My point is that so long as my spell casters who have AoE and CC are alive, they can cast AoE and CC and help the party overcome numbers. Lethally. But all of your points are taken, and well said.

With them down, fewer targets per enemy so each gets hit more often, which means eventually more crits ...

[SharkForce]

yeah, a sleep spell that puts 4 enemies to sleep and costs 4 more enemies their action to wake up the sleeping creatures means you just traded your one action (and a spell slot) for 8 of the enemy's actions. while it may not be *quite* as ideal as taking 4 enemies out of the fight entirely (which is likely 12+ actions worth), it still isn't bad at all, and truthfully, 8 actions in the first turn is probably worth close to as much as 4 actions each in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd turns...

or in other words, you just gave them two bad options and made a huge difference either way.