How often do you have a 'healer' in your party

[DeadMech]

The bard, cleric, or druid (none of whom's lives have been defined by their access to healing magic) cast Greater Restoration because it is a spell available to their class, not to the "role" of "healer."

Or I attempt to strike a noble pose in my last moments and hope that I look cool as I serve as potent warning to the next group of adventurers that happens by.

But really I think restoration is outside the bounds of "healing." "Support" is still a valuable role, I'm just arguing against "healer" as one.

We already know that being able to heal does not mean that you are a "dedicated" healer. So all we've done is prove that you and I have different definitions of what a healer is.

By my definition classes like bard, clerics, druids are healers. They have access to healing abilities. They fill the healer niche. You don't have to roleplay yourself introducing yourself to people as being a healer. You don't have to use 100% of your turns to heal the party. But when someone gets petrified and the party is looking at you and you are playing a druid, your response should be something other than just telling them to strike a pose for posterity and continuing the dungeon or adventure a man down.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, we have a healer.
Sometimes they are a Auradin / Warlock with short rest healing spells.
Sometimes they are a Cleric
Sometimes they are a Druid
Sometimes they are a Celestial Warlock

We find the healthy party that is able to restore themselves from debilitating ailments is a party with good endurance.

[Christew]

We already know that being able to heal does not mean that you are a "dedicated" healer. So all we've done is prove that you and I have different definitions of what a healer is.

Which in a discussion about healers seems like a productive step to my eyes. I hope it is clear that I am not insulting your position -- your post got my gears turning, so I'm posting my musings. I can stop quoting you, if you prefer.

By my definition classes like bard, clerics, druids are healers. They have access to healing abilities. They fill the healer niche. You don't have to roleplay yourself introducing yourself to people as being a healer. You don't have to use 100% of your turns to heal the party.

Is a celestial warlock a healer? Or a cleric1/wizardX? I'm not claiming that you need to wear a name tag or only exist to heal, but with such ubiquitous access to healing abilities from classes/subclasses/races/feats that can be built in a myriad of different directions the usefulness of the term starts to break down for me.

But when someone gets petrified and the party is looking at you and you are playing a druid, your response should be something other than just telling them to strike a pose for posterity and continuing the dungeon or adventure a man down.

Well, if they are already petrified then advising them to pose just seems insensitive.

But more seriously, I'll refute the notion that having a spell on your class list means that you are beholden to have it prepared at all times. Do we glare at someone for not having feather fall or water breathing prepared when encountered with a situation where it would be the easiest path forward? Hopefully not. Hopefully we take stock of what items and abilities we do have available to us and find a solution.

I will grant you that moving the goalposts from healing to restoration was a solid move. I'm much more willing to accede the value of a "restorer."

[Sindal]

Weighing back in for the fun

This thought was spurred on by an event

My group a little while ago was up against some kinda of metal dragon.

Dragon opened up the turn with a breath thay clipped most of the party down to 40% and lower hp figures.

Me, on the divine soul soeceorr, spent my turns enabling spiritual weapons and getting haste onto my tank. The tank queried this to me as he knows I'm a bit of a healbot in games and I replied "no time. If scales here gets another breath charge back we're toast anywya".

After we were safe I used a few spells to help patch up the team, firfulling my usual healing job.

But the above scenario highlighted that most of the time, my dude isn't a 'healer' in the most traditional sense despite having a healers leaning. He's some kind of combat medic that responds to threats as they come.

But if you asked me "are you this parties healer?" I'd probably still say yes. Because I enjoy that title and he was designed to be able to heal people, despite not always having the luxury to do so.

[kingcheesepants]

By my definition classes like bard, clerics, druids are healers. They have access to healing abilities. They fill the healer niche. You don't have to roleplay yourself introducing yourself to people as being a healer. You don't have to use 100% of your turns to heal the party. But when someone gets petrified and the party is looking at you and you are playing a druid, your response should be something other than just telling them to strike a pose for posterity and continuing the dungeon or adventure a man down.

Artificer, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Celestial Warlock, Divine Soul Sorcerer, mark of healing halfling. These are the people who have access to cure wounds and lesser restoration. There's also the Mercy Monk which gets its own special version of the same. This leaves only the Barbarian, Fighter, Rouge and Wizard as the ones without cure wounds and restoration (or a subclass which grants something equivalent). You may note that the list of non healers is shorter than the list of healers.

So if you want to define healer in this extremely broad range than I have never been in a party without a healer because I've never been in a party of only full martials and a wizard. I have been in an all wizard party but one of the wizards was a mark of healing halfling and another had a level in Artificer, so even in that all wizard party we had 2 healers. I've also been in a party with a ranger, fighter, wizard, and artificer so apparently we had 2 healers in that party as well since we had a ranger and an artificer.

[Frogreaver]

Yes, we have a healer.
Sometimes they are a Auradin / Warlock with short rest healing spells.
Sometimes they are a Cleric
Sometimes they are a Druid
Sometimes they are a Celestial Warlock

We find the healthy party that is able to restore themselves from debilitating ailments is a party with good endurance.

I find Tier 1 and even early tier 2 that having an actual focused healer present is a really big boon. At some point though removing debilitating ailments becomes much more important.

[False God]

By my definition classes like bard, clerics, druids are healers. They have access to healing abilities. They fill the healer niche. You don't have to roleplay yourself introducing yourself to people as being a healer. You don't have to use 100% of your turns to heal the party. But when someone gets petrified and the party is looking at you and you are playing a druid, your response should be something other than just telling them to strike a pose for posterity and continuing the dungeon or adventure a man down.

The fact that I could have done healing means I must and am going to get glares from my group if I'm not? This attitude has made me and others I know walk from games.

[OldTrees1]

I find Tier 1 and even early tier 2 that having an actual focused healer present is a really big boon. At some point though removing debilitating ailments becomes much more important.

Agree, although I feel those are the same role. Some wounds are not mere damage, so some healing is not mere hp.

One of the saddest moments for the paladin was when someone was cursed and the paladin could not remove it yet. So we went back to town instead.

[Naanomi]

In some ways, I find it unfortunate that pure healer isn't a very valid role (it wasn't in 3.X either without a ton of power manipulation)... I like the idea of being a healer, and while it shouldn't be necessary it feels more like healing is a suboptimal choice and focusing on it is thus hurting the party compared to alternatives

[OldTrees1]

In some ways, I find it unfortunate that pure healer isn't a very valid role (it wasn't in 3.X either without a ton of power manipulation)... I like the idea of being a healer, and while it shouldn't be necessary it feels more like healing is a suboptimal choice and focusing on it is thus hurting the party compared to alternatives

Paladin 2 / Warlock 1 / Paladin +4 / Warlock +2 / Paladin +3 / Warlock +2 / Paladin +4 / Warlock + 2
You are now a Cleric with 1/3rd casting that recharges at a Short Rest.
You also have a Paladin Aura.
Feel free to take Inspiring Leader.

Main issue is Remove Curse comes at 12th and Greater Restoration is only available if you find a Prayer Bead magic item.

Since you are an Auradin, you have preventative healing (Inspiring Leader), and short rest resources:
You can be a pure healer. You don't need to do anything else if you don't want to.

Alternatively you can be a Cleric X and spend your top level spells on Aid, then use Inspiring Leader, and watch your allies succeed.

[Telwar]

In some ways, I find it unfortunate that pure healer isn't a very valid role (it wasn't in 3.X either without a ton of power manipulation)... I like the idea of being a healer, and while it shouldn't be necessary it feels more like healing is a suboptimal choice and focusing on it is thus hurting the party compared to alternatives

The problem with in-combat healing in 3/PF and 5e is that, between like 1st-2nd level and whenever you get Heal, incoming damage tends to way, way outstrip any healing you can do, and it's more efficient to remove the incoming damage, especially since the d8s from Cure Wounds and d4s from Healing Word can roll distressingly low. Adding a fixed amount to those (or, say, adding the target's largest Hit Die, say) would make that a lot more handy.

That being said, my last 3.5 character, a goliath barbarian/cleric, had a gnome cleric cohort whose sole job was to cast Heal on my character. He rode around in a backpack.

[Frogreaver]

The problem with in-combat healing in 3/PF and 5e is that, between like 1st-2nd level and whenever you get Heal, incoming damage tends to way, way outstrip any healing you can do, and it's more efficient to remove the incoming damage, especially since the d8s from Cure Wounds and d4s from Healing Word can roll distressingly low. Adding a fixed amount to those (or, say, adding the target's largest Hit Die, say) would make that a lot more handy.

That being said, my last 3.5 character, a goliath barbarian/cleric, had a gnome cleric cohort whose sole job was to cast Heal on my character. He rode around in a backpack.

Combat Healing is primarily a form of risk mitigation in 5e. The issue with it is that most Characters for most of the game cannot heal enough in a single turn to substantially lower the risk (Life Clerics are exceptions primarily due to their channel divinity and the healing bonus helps too, Paladins lay on hands is as well but only can accomplish substantial risk mitigation 1 time per day).

It's also worth noting that 5e is not designed for you to spam leveled spells every combat turn.

Perhaps I should start a thread about life cleric tactics.

[Ashrym]

In 0% of the games I have played has their not been a "healer" to some degree. Because healing in DnD is a niche the same way "face" is a niche and a variety of other things are a niche. You don't have to be defined by and only act as a healer in the same way you don't have to be defined by and only act as a party face.

Party face isn't a niche. It's a way of life. A rogue who can never roll lower than the DC 20 request for favors is a blast to play. ;-)

Sure and what happens when you run into something that can permanently petrify you all of a sudden? Or get hit by a spawn of kyuss, or any number of things that can only be mitigated with a very timely restoration?

Then that alchemist people slam gets to show off the free uses the subclass has to remove those conditions. Or someone casts the spells. They are available to many classes.

By my definition classes like bard, clerics, druids are healers. They have access to healing abilities.

The bard who's only healing abilities are song of rest and counter-charm might be an eye-opener then. Some bards never take a single healing spell, and other classes aren't any more obligated to prepare a healing spell than any other spell on their respective spell lists. ;-)

I find Tier 1 and even early tier 2 that having an actual focused healer present is a really big boon. At some point though removing debilitating ailments becomes much more important.

That's one of the benefits of alchemists. 5 free uses of lesser restoration from restorative reagents and one free casting of greater restoration from chemical mastery leaves spell slots for use lost to other classes or subclasses who needed the slots to replicate those abilities. IME status afflictions do become an issue so those abilities are a decent benefit despite other drawbacks.

[sambojin]

I mostly play Druids, so it's mostly me.

Between Goodberry (even if your DM won't let others feed them to downed party members, they're still good for druid stuff and non-combaty stuff), Healing Word, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic, Conjured Fey as spell batteries later on, sustained DPR dead-condition-inducers, Polymorph, subclass abilites, and the new potential Revivify spell-prep-tax (because, you never know), I'm it. To the point of telling other possible healing classes, "Seriously, don't bother, know/prep something better. I can cover all the Healy things, and still do my things as well, on any given day. Maybe take Healing Word, in case I go down?".

If we need a "healer", I can just slot an extra spell or three over to that for the day/ session/ entire campaign, and still live large Druiding the ever-living-s* out of things regardless. I would have had 2-5 of them on my prepared spells list most days anyway.

[Theodoxus]

Somewhat often, because it is me, because I like the role

The few times I don't DM, I'm 90% a life Cleric because it is my favorite role. In MMORPGs, I gravitate to the healer role. I love the adrenaline rush of trying to keep a team in fighting shape, mitigating incoming spike damage. Damn it, now I'm jonsing to re-up my WoW account...

In some ways, I find it unfortunate that pure healer isn't a very valid role (it wasn't in 3.X either without a ton of power manipulation)... I like the idea of being a healer, and while it shouldn't be necessary it feels more like healing is a suboptimal choice and focusing on it is thus hurting the party compared to alternatives

As others have said, its more efficient to kill for the party than to heal for them. It doesn't have to be though. Given my own love of healing, I've designed encounters where it was more important to survive than to kill - though sometimes getting that through my player's thick skulls takes a bit... "Why won't this giant rock dude suffer any damage from my axe!" Eventually they come to realize what needs to happen...

Combat Healing is primarily a form of risk mitigation in 5e. The issue with it is that most Characters for most of the game cannot heal enough in a single turn to substantially lower the risk (Life Clerics are exceptions primarily due to their channel divinity and the healing bonus helps too, Paladins lay on hands is as well but only can accomplish substantial risk mitigation 1 time per day).

It's also worth noting that 5e is not designed for you to spam leveled spells every combat turn.

Perhaps I should start a thread about life cleric tactics.

It's a team game. This healer question could spawn off "How often do you have a 'controller' or 'defender' in your party as well (to steal 4Eisms). A healer is greatly helped by a decent controller who is keeping the horde at bay and only allowing a limited number of opponents to deal any damage at all. A defender 'holding the line' and has their own mitigating abilities (high AC, dodge (uncanny or otherwise), resistance, etc.) also helps. Having both is amazing and allows for some really impressive encounters to be built to challenge them.

It also kinda depends on the size of the party. A stereotypical party of 4 is going to be harder pressed - or at least combat will take a lot longer if it only has 1 decent 'striker'. A party of 7 with a defender, controller and healer with 4 strikers is going to rip through encounters, even deadly++ in only a couple of rounds. At that point, the healer could literally use their slots every combat to 'top off the group' and come slide into a long rest with a few slots left.

[nickl_2000]

I mostly play Druids, so it's mostly me.

Between Goodberry (even if your DM won't let others feed them to downed party members, they're still good for druid stuff and non-combaty stuff), Healing Word, Lesser Restoration, Dispel Magic, Conjured Fey as spell batteries later on, sustained DPR dead-condition-inducers, Polymorph, subclass abilites, and the new potential Revivify spell-prep-tax (because, you never know), I'm it. To the point of telling other possible healing classes, "Seriously, don't bother, know/prep something better. I can cover all the Healy things, and still do my things as well, on any given day. Maybe take Healing Word, in case I go down?".

If we need a "healer", I can just slot an extra spell or three over to that for the day/ session/ entire campaign, and still live large Druiding the ever-living-s* out of things regardless. I would have had 2-5 of them on my prepared spells list most days anyway.

I can agree with you very strongly here. Druids are really, really good at spell slot economy. You can cast 1 spell in combat, completely turn the combat on it's head and just ping cantrips for the rest of it and still be effective. So, that leaves a lot of slots option for other healing. Add onto that that ability to produce a massive amount of goodberries right before taking a long rest and you cover things very well.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Almost always. I've had a few games without one, but most of my players come from gaming backgrounds and can't wrap their heads around the idea that you don't absolutely need a dedicated healer. One of my current players present in every game, whether I'm DMing or playing, specifically chooses to be a healer more often than not, and another newbie in a few games has never seriously entertained playing anything else. Yes, this has meant parties with multiple dedicated healers.

I'm not gonna yell at them so long as they're having fun.

[Garresh]

Never seen one played except by me. lol

Ima plug my guide on the topic and then offer some advice..

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...ler-s-Handbook

Dedicated healing is tricky. Because of the way healing scales it's really not a good focus without some sort of plan A. I cover this in my guide, but generally if you wanna make a dedicated healer you want someone who can heal while also being strong in combat. If you wanna play a support, you probably want to focus more heavily on buffing, in addition to healing. Ironically the most healy subclass(Life Cleric) is honestly more of a frontline melee powerhouse. Not as bursty or aura based as a paladin, but sits in melee doing aoe and being unkillable.

Anyways, I recommend a single level of life cleric then multiclassing into a class with a strong support potential. If you wanna go deep in support, then either a lore bard or a sorceror(wild or divine or clockwork. Yes, wild. Seriously) is a good option. I prefer druids myself, but they're more battlefield controllers. Anywho.

Lore bard can grab aura of vitality with magical secrets, and poop out massive healing with a bonus action every round leaving your action free. Their buff selection of spells actually isn't that great, but inspiration and cutting words are boss. And their debuffs are S tier. Dissonant whispers gives free opportunity attacks so you can use it to grant attacks to allies.

Sorcs main draw is metamagic and its amazing buffs. You can twin your healing words and put out frankly insane amounts of healing for very little resources. But the biggest reason is Twin metamagic on buffs like Haste or Greater Invisibility. Basically inject half your party with steroids and watch them win battles for you, while dropping twinned heals if needed or even twinning guiding bolts.

If you go divine, you can pick up a bunch of other buffs from the cleric list and use them with cha. This is basically a squishier cleric with better support potential. Also, fireball.

Wild's big draw is Bend Luck, which lets you influence die rolls as a reaction. It's similar to Bard's cutting words but can give you a ton of uses if you don't mind the cost. It's very good at protecting allies. But the wild surges are random and can be detrimental(usually not though). Also fireball. Sometimes as a wild surge targeting you.

Clockwork is new and I need to update my guide. But it allows you to create shields on allies before going into combat(action economy is important), as well as negate advantage on attacks on allies. Also lets you pick up some good abjuration spells you wouldn't normally get, like Remove Curse. Not sure how this would play in practice though, since I haven't tested it yet. Also fireball.

[Garresh]

Oh and add to the above threads, one caveat. When the game is a meat grinder where the kobolds stab the unconscious guy, and the evil caster uses disintegrate, healing in combat goes from inefficient to a necessity.

Tbh as both player and dm, this is something that shouldn't happen without early warning of some sort. Typical enemies aren't going to attack an unconscious foe if they're still in combat. I think it has a place, but the dm should either clearly communicate this, or give some kind of foreshadowing. i.e. Let's say an assassins guild has a mark on the players head. Have them witness an assassin striking in the street and continuing to stab a downed mark while guards attack before vanishing via magic. I lost a character to that bs once because my party was like "eh we'll get him up after the fight" and the DM was feeling murderous. Admittedly they were fairly new but it was annoying af. /rant

[Frogreaver]

Tbh as both player and dm, this is something that shouldn't happen without early warning of some sort. Typical enemies aren't going to attack an unconscious foe if they're still in combat. I think it has a place, but the dm should either clearly communicate this, or give some kind of foreshadowing. i.e. Let's say an assassins guild has a mark on the players head. Have them witness an assassin striking in the street and continuing to stab a downed mark while guards attack before vanishing via magic. I lost a character to that bs once because my party was like "eh we'll get him up after the fight" and the DM was feeling murderous. Admittedly they were fairly new but it was annoying af. /rant

The alternative is make targeting downed PCs so common that all but the dumbest enemies do this and your team won’t wait to heal anyone.

[Garresh]

The alternative is make targeting downed PCs so common that all but the dumbest enemies do this and your team won’t wait to heal anyone.

As long as it's made clear in session zero it's a high lethality game I'm for it. Tbh part of me prefers it, but it needs to be clear. Since unconscious targets get auto crit a single attack is 2 failed death saves. 5e has the most unforgiving dying state of the last few editions. It's quite possible for a multiattacker to drop someone then kill them all in one action if they were low enough.

[Frogreaver]

As long as it's made clear in session zero it's a high lethality game I'm for it. Tbh part of me prefers it, but it needs to be clear. Since unconscious targets get auto crit a single attack is 2 failed death saves. 5e has the most unforgiving dying state of the last few editions. It's quite possible for a multiattacker to drop someone then kill them all in one action if they were low enough.

Yea, preferably in session 0. But this is something that's going to come up so early on that I don't think it necessarily has to be a session 0 thing.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

We haven't had one yet, in the sense of a Cleric built to optimize healing, or even in the sense of one who's primary job was healing. That said we have had a lot of Druids, Clerics, Paladins (pretty much 1 per campaign), and a couple of Bards. Players mostly seem to deal with healing by committee.

[Dork_Forge]

IME it's incredibly rare to not have someone with the ability to heal someone else to at least some degree, in most groups someone may gravitate towards healing more, but there's rarely a dedicated healer.

IMO combat healing is greatly underappreciated in 5e optimisation, it can pretty easily be built up from a few different angles to be very effective.

That said there's a great deal of reliability in having lower amounts of healing more diffused throughout the party for overall party survivability.

Playing a character in a PbP that I consider the party's primary healer. That isn't because I'm necessarily the best at it, but I explicitly set aside resources for that purpose and take it upon myself to fill that role.

[Spiritchaser]

As many others have experienced:

Someone who can throw a few solid heals? Almost always.

Someone who has a character who is either mechanically or thematically focused primarily on healing? Almost never.

[KillingTime]

Rarely a true dedicated healer.
Once a life cleric and once a celestial warlock.
Most of the time we're perfectly OK with anyone who can cast healing word or lay on hands.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Tbh as both player and dm, this is something that shouldn't happen without early warning of some sort. Typical enemies aren't going to attack an unconscious foe if they're still in combat. I think it has a place, but the dm should either clearly communicate this, or give some kind of foreshadowing. i.e. Let's say an assassins guild has a mark on the players head. Have them witness an assassin striking in the street and continuing to stab a downed mark while guards attack before vanishing via magic. I lost a character to that bs once because my party was like "eh we'll get him up after the fight" and the DM was feeling murderous. Admittedly they were fairly new but it was annoying af. /rant

This is one of the marquee topics in the Session Zero questionnaire I hand out. I used to just system shock players early by putting a character in jeopardy early, back when I didn't do Session Zero, was young, and kinda stupid. I feel like every DM should really talk to their players about how difficult the game should be. As much as I love meat grinders, some people really can't stand it.

Ever since then my players have always opted for my hardcore, no quarter given style. But at least it's always been their choice.

[Brookshw]

The fact that I could have done healing means I must and am going to get glares from my group if I'm not? This attitude has made me and others I know walk from games.

Since 1e I've never seen someone walk from a group/game because they were expected to spend some portion of their spells per day to support the group. I've seen the opposite where, when no one was initially going to play a character with support/healing magic, someone decided to switch their character plan, that's happened plenty of times and is more common in my experience.

[Theodoxus]

Since 1e I've never seen someone walk from a group/game because they were expected to spend some portion of their spells per day to support the group. I've seen the opposite where, when no one was initially going to play a character without support/healing magic, someone decided to switch their character plan, that's happened plenty of times and is more common in my experience.

I played in a game where the only healing available for a long while was from a War Cleric. He basically straight up refused to even take healing spells. "You have HD, and my god wants me to kill, not heal you." At 4th, the Sorcerer took Inspiring Leader to help keep the party trucking and the Drunken Master took the Healer feat and we chipped in for healer's kits.

Some encounters were a little shaky in the beginning, but the Cleric never wavered no matter how much we begged. It did fit within his ethos though, so we never really complained. And he was a powerhouse by 5th, wading into battle with Spirit Guardians and Res (Con); he was nigh unstoppable... plus a big target, so he was burning more HD than the rest of the party most days.

[False God]

Since 1e I've never seen someone walk from a group/game because they were expected to spend some portion of their spells per day to support the group. I've seen the opposite where, when no one was initially going to play a character with support/healing magic, someone decided to switch their character plan, that's happened plenty of times and is more common in my experience.

I mean, everyone's experience differs right?

I've changed my build before, begrudgingly. It's when I first got my love of playing non-good alignments. He was a dwarf LN healing cleric nick-named "the repairman". If you broke it, he'd fix it, for a price, I charged the other party members gold on the basis of the spell level I used and the amount of healing it actually did (parts and labor). If they weren't in immediate need of healing, I'd provide them an estimate beforehand. If they were nearly dying, I'd heal them, and leave them with a bill, same as if they shouted out "I need healing!" in battle. No more healing until they were paid up.

You'd think, "OMG! That's terrible, the party must have hated you!" No, actually they paid their bills. I didn't get a cut of the loot but that was fine, I was getting paid for a job and honestly I made out pretty well most of the time. They also got better at avoiding and mitigating damage, instead of just expecting me to cover them.

In the end, I had to retire them because the party was too good at covering themselves. And I got to play what I wanted.

Anyone at the table could change their build. Heck, everyone could build a cleric of many flavors, run 1 or 2 healing spells and the entire party would be covered. But I'm not cool with "We all want to play our characters our way, but because your character could heal we expect you to take care of us." I'm not your mom, I'm not your baby-sitter. I'm here to play a team-based game where we all work together, not one where you run off and do the dumb and expect me to clean up the mess.

I honestly like playing healers, and the cleric and the druid are a couple of my favorite classes. But I don't like being expected to heal. If you want heals, be prepared to bring that to the table yourself. Don't sit there and say "Well, my build can't heal, so you have to."

This may seem like a bad attitude, but I've gotten a lot of people to start running healers themselves, or run characters with some healing, or tune down their glass cannon builds to be able to take a few more hits. The people I've played with a long time don't come to the table expecting someone else to cover them. They come prepared to cover themselves.