|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.
Actually no on this also.
3e = healing be UMD/Wand of CLW
4e = healing is triggered internally/tied to character
5e = healing is tied to character via HD
Eliminating the need for a dedicated healer was a side affect of the terri-bad, class ability stomping UMD. It could have been a deliberate design consideration - but considering how badly 3rd ed was designed without any long term considerations/repercussions of 2e-3e changes I seriously doubt this (hp outpacing damage, terrible save paradigms, DC abuse, skills being useless class features and easily gamed, meta/numerical spikes taking characters wildly out of CR for each encounter, etc).
Self-healing in 4e was a deliberate design consideration.
In all the games I've ever played in, including 3.0/3.5, we needed a dedicated healer every time. UMDing CLW wands didn't cut it past 3rd level. Personally, I don't think a dedicated healer should be imperative to the core adventuring party in RPG's, but I like them due to tradition and quite frankly, their utility spells were too good not to have around.
Remove X, Protection from X, Restorations, Raises, Ressurections, etc, etc, the list goes on. Oh, NPC in town can do that? Awesome, except we're a thousand miles from a settlement large enough to have the casters high enough to do any of that and we're on a time table to save the princess before she's killed by the BBEG. Not to mention, our wizard can't teleport the 4 of us, my animal companion, his own familiar, the paladin's leadership cohort and the NPC exposition guy that the DM stuck us with. We need it now! (Or latest tomorrow, early AM, Mr Cleric).
|
|
Being able to spontaneously cast healing spells was a big design change - doesn't really have anything to do with getting rid of dedicated healer as part of a class function since you still need that class in the party to be able to get that benefit.
2nd tier healers are worthless at mid-level and beyond due to the sheer increase in HP across the board for all characters and creatures.
In other words, you still have to have the cleric who has that list of utility/combat who then could sub out for healing spells to begin with.
That is miles apart from needing that kind of backup in 5e.
In 5e if you survive the day then you are good to go the next day with 0 problems. That right there is really eliminating the need for a dedicated healing class even if his healing is an alt/sub ability on a whim. You don't need him.
|
|
Focusing on healing hp and not long term/degraded conditions.
Though 3rd level Raise Dead (revivify) with no side-effects does lean towards limited long term debilitating conditions/effects as a general design consideration.
At least in Basic
Edit: looking at the newer Basic doc - I'm not seeing any long term conditions (Blindness, etc) - no indications that any effects are permanent besides Petrification. Raise dead (strangely) has more negatives than Revivify. -4 on everything, going down -1 per full (long) rest.
Edit2: they do have creatures with disease - so a dedicated healer would help with that (or maybe even 2nd tier). Though you can try to fight the disease on your own - Rest 3 days then make a 15 Con save.
No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.Actually no on this also.
3e = healing be UMD/Wand of CLW
4e = healing is triggered internally/tied to character
5e = healing is tied to character via HDEliminating the need for a dedicated healer was a side affect of the terri-bad, class ability stomping UMD. It could have been a deliberate design consideration - but considering how badly 3rd ed was designed without any long term considerations/repercussions of 2e-3e changes I seriously doubt this (hp outpacing damage, terrible save paradigms, DC abuse, skills being useless class features and easily gamed, meta/numerical spikes taking characters wildly out of CR for each encounter, etc).
Self-healing in 4e was a deliberate design consideration.
I don't really agree with this. In 4e games, having a healer that can give others the option to spend a healing surge without eating an action was kind of important.
|
|
I don't really agree with this. In 4e games, having a healer that can give others the option to spend a healing surge without eating an action was kind of important.No, but it's not really carried over from 4E either, since it was carried from 3.x to 4E. It's not a new design philosophy. It's something like 14 years old at this point.Actually no on this also.
3e = healing be UMD/Wand of CLW
4e = healing is triggered internally/tied to character
5e = healing is tied to character via HDEliminating the need for a dedicated healer was a side affect of the terri-bad, class ability stomping UMD. It could have been a deliberate design consideration - but considering how badly 3rd ed was designed without any long term considerations/repercussions of 2e-3e changes I seriously doubt this (hp outpacing damage, terrible save paradigms, DC abuse, skills being useless class features and easily gamed, meta/numerical spikes taking characters wildly out of CR for each encounter, etc).
Self-healing in 4e was a deliberate design consideration.
I'm not talking about the specifics or mechanics - but a design consideration - "self-healing" as a concept - using the PCs own healing surges, etc.
The process of having characters who traditionally (3rd ed and before) didn't or were not able to heal themselves changed in 4e - that was my point. Changing the way healing worked - who can do it, how to manage hp as a resource, etc.
I think a game where a healer is unnecessary is better designed (since I can imagine a situation where nobody wants to play one) - nonetheless, it bugs me too.
It just doesnt feel right to me if there isnt a cleric, fighter, thief and magicuser.
I don't mind a healer not being required in basic parties. It frees up people to play what they really want vs. what they "need". Further, the idea of a non-magical healer was something of a Godsend to me because I honestly liked playing the support role but not necessarily all the spell management that came along with it.
Yeah me too in theory.
I understand what Logan1138 means though.
Focusing on healing hp and not long term/degraded conditions.Though 3rd level Raise Dead (revivify) with no side-effects does lean towards limited long term debilitating conditions/effects as a general design consideration.
At least in Basic
Edit: looking at the newer Basic doc - I'm not seeing any long term conditions (Blindness, etc) - no indications that any effects are permanent besides Petrification. Raise dead (strangely) has more negatives than Revivify. -4 on everything, going down -1 per full (long) rest.
Edit2: they do have creatures with disease - so a dedicated healer would help with that (or maybe even 2nd tier). Though you can try to fight the disease on your own - Rest 3 days then make a 15 Con save.
There are supposed to be rules in the new DMG about lasting damage. Presumably this would require time or magical healing to cure. I believe it's intended with a number of other options in the DMG to produce a more old school type game. We'll see how it turns out.