This may be more common in general than it has been for me, but since starting D&D with BECMI and 2nd edition AD&D, I've honestly never had to deal with having the majority of the party being healers.
If anything, in my personal DM experience, I've had few or no healers. I've just always had players that like to be fighters, thieves, and wizards for the majority of the time.
So I've started DMing for a new group using HotDQ. I didn't really think about it until after our second session, but the party consists of:
1 Paladin
1 Ranger
2 Clerics
1 Monk
They just hit 2nd level at the end of the last session and are deciding which features to choose to level up with. At this point, I'm not sure that the ranger will take Cure Wounds and/or Goodberry, but it's possible he'll want them, and even if he doesn't, with a paladin and 2 clerics, over half of the party will still be healers.
I've never been one to tell players that they have to have a certain party makeup. There are a couple of races I eliminate, but I never said anything like, "you need to have less of this and more of that" or anything like that. Outside of those couple of specific races I eliminate (which nobody wanted to use anyway), I want them to be able to have whatever party makeup that allows them to play the class they want.
So, to counter the higher level of healing with this many healers, it occurs to me to do one of the following 3 things, or to just mix these up in different encounters:
1. Add more monsters to encounters
2. Keep encounters the same, but have more of them in the Adventuring Day
3. Keep things pretty much as is
For those of you who have had parties with more healing available to the characters, what have you done? Which of these options works best? What other options are there that I'm not thinking of?
Here is what I do when the party has more characters capable of healing that usual:
The same thing I would have done if some or all of those heal-capable characters weren't heal capable.
The reason I don't run things any differently for such a party is simple: If I ramp up how much damage is likely to come the party's way, I am forcing all of those healing capable characters to spend resources on healing that maybe they didn't actually want to be spending on healing because they thought having so many healing capable characters would mean each could cover part of what a single healer character normally would and still have plenty of their resources left for things like smites, buffs, debuffs, and maybe even a few blasty cleric spells.
I'd say run it as it is as well. The Paladin's, Ranger's and Monk's prime rolls aren't to heal, a Cleric is more apt to do that, but even then they may not choose to heal. Plus, there is always the option for potions, assuming one did not house rule them out.
In my HotDQ game I have 2 Barbarians, 1 Bard, a Warlock and a soon to be joining Monk. I don't have enough healers!
"Introduce" the party to monsters that give them non-HP conditions like Poisoned or Restrained. If they are facing a BBEG, he will try to strike at the Party's weaknesses, not indulge its strengths.
But when facing somebody who does not know their reputation or capabilities, send in normal opponents. The group will feel cool and powerful, making more progress than a non-Heal party can. And there is a reason why modern Armies bring along Doctors in the supply chain.
Flip side: Is this party having trouble in the DPR department? You may have to use avg HP instead of max HP for monsters. Again, except for BBEG's deliberate efforts to set them up to fail.
Spellcasters who use their spells for healing aren't using them for damage. Fights will take longer. Characters will be fully healed after most fights. But it shouldn't make fights any easier. Spell slots will be how your group measures their fatigue.
Thanks for the responses everyone, there's some good stuff to think about.
I do kind of like the idea of at least throwing in some more monsters that impose conditions, even if just occasionally.
I just finished HotDQ with my group. I accidentally nerfed the new Barbarian because the Big Nasty kept flying back to his perch and hanging like a bat - the ceiling is 30 feet up. There's no way a melee attack is going to hit that, and Barbarians are all about melee combat. As a result, I'm looking for a 'throwaway' encounter in Tiamat that involves beating up some ground-pounders. This will give the Barb a chance to shine.
Feel free, after a tough session, to design a fight / encounter the guy who was left out is good at. It refills his Confidence Meter.
BRJN wrote:
I'd say run it straight as an experiment - record how long the combat takes.
Test if it really makes a difference with actual play.
BRJN wrote:
After eating one Attack from the Barb (ouch), the Big Nasty - who was size Huge - decided to use ranged and extended-reach attacks the rest of the time. He was INT 8 - dumb but not suicidally stupid. Inspired by the last thing our old DM did before he left (Big Nasty is clumsy and falls a lot), one of the group cast Shatter on the ceiling, bringing Big Nasty down in a heap. This is how the Barb got in her one good hit. The rest of the group did a good job of Missile / Magic attacks on Big Nasty, the Barb threw Javelins, and the Wizard finally put it to Sleep to prevent its escape. (The group was wise enough to enter from all sides of the cavern, so Big Nasty was taking fire from all directions and did not have a cluster of enemies to Alpha Strike.)
What I intend to do next is set up a fake "toll booth" (the goons actually just steal whatever they can carry) with a bunch of minions and wimps swarming in from all directions. The Barb doesn't know it yet but she has Aggro. This should give her a chance to practice her shtick without the Wizard using Fireball on a big cluster of enemies.
I don't think there is any need to change things.
Honestly in 5e, in-combat healing is far from efficient. Any PC spending rounds healing is probably making a sub-optimal choice, as most monsters deal out damage faster than you can heal it. Healing in 5e is best used to buy time or return a PC to consciousness. The most efficient form of healing is using Hit Dice, and anyone can do that during a short rest. A party full of healer's is probably going to take longer on average to win an encounter and potentially take more damage in the process.
It all evens out.
5th edition tackled most of the problems of having many healers, by making them both versatile and healing-capable.
Where in previous editions the healers would dedicate all or most of their spells to healing spells at the start of the day, now every caster can decide what spells to use his slots on as he goes along. With two clerics both with Cure Wounds and Healing Word on their spell list of the day, both could cast nothing but Guiding Bolts with their slots if nobody required healing.
With the ability to use higherlevel spell slots to enhance lowerlevel spells, Cure Wounds and Healing Word are all the healing spells that are required (instead of the Cure Light Wounds, Cure Moderate Wounds..), leaving open many spells that the casters can dedicate to other spells.
And there's the cantrips. A healer focussed cleric in previous editions, with a high focus in wisdom, could find himself severly lacking in combat if he hadn't invested in strength or dexterity. With the cantrips like Sacred Flame, even a wisdom focussed healer always has a damaging option available every round.
I kinda like the idea of all healing-capable casters. It gives the players the opportunity to switch roles. Instead of one cleric being "in charge" of healing all the time, the two you have can decide from combat to combat who does the healing and who casts other spells. And if the paladin and ranger get seperated from the rest in an encounter, they can keep themselves up with their own healing.
Only thing to keep an eye on is that things can get dull if they cast nothing but healing spells. Then a suggestion to cast some other spells to speed up combat can be handy.
Razintarr wrote:
The concern is not "Oh no, I have too many healers, how will I challenge them?" You're the DM, you can always add more monsters.
The real concern is "Oh no, the characters are healing instead of damaging and the fights are taking forever."
If the players don't think the battles are taking too long, it's not a problem.
Alternately, break their long rest with a surprise night encounter once in a while and challenge them the next day with encounters they have to face without their bottomless healing spring.
alienux wrote:
I sometimes hamper healing ability if the cleric/paladin/etc are trying to heal someone the deity would not give two squirts about.
You are a disciple of Lawful God of Healing? Great! Just can't heal that Chaotic Neutral (we all know he's actually Evil) rogue in your party.
Just like a Paladin used to lose their abilities for breaking their oath, I find holy magic being conditional on dogma to be both flavorful and appropriate.
Another tactic could be to have your villains start to escape more often, then team up against the party as retribution for thwarting them too easily.
Earthdawn wrote:
Adventure design will be important. Since the party has many healing resources, to challenge them will require long days where the party is compelled to continue deeper and deeper into enemy territory so to speak. This group seems perfect for pursuing baddies without having to rest or moving fast and continuously to avoid a cataclysmic event, etc.
Rather than having hit points determine success or failure, you may need to establish other success and failure criteria - Race against time, save innocent npcs, prevent a villain from completing a dastardly plan, etc. In these scenarios, it's ok if the pcs get healed often because that alone does not stop the tension or guarantee success. Enjoy it. It is the ultimate story driven way to play.
I don't see how a group of all-healers is particularly stronger than any other group, so I wouldn't change anything.
As the others already said the only issue that could really occur here is that battles are taking too long. But players can control that too by deciding to use their resources for something other than healing.
I've got it! Mummy rot for everyone! 
Zardnaar wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
What if your monsters and villains could defeat the PCs by doing something other than reducing their hit points to zero?
Just about all of the scenarios I present here allow for that possibility. In "Reimagining 'Goblin Arrows'," the PCs can effectively "lose" by allowing the goblins to escape with valuable property. The main threat in "Sea Horse Run" - sea horses - don't even do any damage and can still defeat the PCs. In "The Temple of Bazim-Gorag," the monsters aren't even interested in killing the PCs - unless those PCs are immune to disease - because the slaadi want to implant them with eggs and send them on their way.
Present challenges like these and healing will be helpful, but not necessarily be the thing that allows the characters to prevail.
The other characters really do have better things to do than healing, though 2x Life Clerics is going to be a lot regardless. They're basically the one case where healing isn't dumb and inefficient outside of emergencies. Still, I agree with most posters that you don't need to do a lot, although there are some things you can try:
- Vary party vs. single target damage (mass cure wounds is too high level to spam).
- Cure wounds is touch (and healing word is less healing) so make positioning an issue with mobile opponents.
- Use larger numbers of low-CR enemies, which are fragile but still do good damage. The clerics will be much better off helping clean them out than heal spaming.
- Enemy spellcasters (or creatures with nasty abilities) encourage the clerics to look at other spells (command, hold person/monster, banishment) for CC.
- A few monsters directly counter healing (either by preventing it or reducing max HP). Most of these are evil outsiders or undead, so the clerics and paladin will have other tools to use against them than raw healing.
- Any kind of time pressure, as has already been mentioned, will make a slow tank & heal strategy less effective.
Rhenny wrote:
In theory:
Party A has no healers: they have multiple encounters, deal a lot of damage, bad guys die. Party A take 50hps of damage
Party B has lots of healers: They have multiple encounters, deal not as much damage, bad guys take longer to die. Party B takes 100hp of damage, heals 50hp.
Or some variation of that theme. With no rogue, they will take damage from traps. With no fireball, they will take more damage from swarms. with no fighters, they will take longer to kill big monsters, etc.
Plus A) Using healing during battle means they are dealing even less damage, thus monsters stay alive longer and do more damage, and B) I have not found healing to be much of an issue in 5E. HotDQ doesn't have that many 6-8 encounter days... and between Hit dice, long rests, and some limited healing... it has never been an issue.
Lots of good answers from everyone. Thanks for the input.
QwertyAzerty wrote:
The point is that every turn you spend casting a healing spell you don't spend on doing damage.
Increasing the number of encounters is like the opposite thing you should do if you have many healers in the group (just makes something that takes long take even longer). Just make sure that there are occasionally single encounters that fully challenge the group (this is already a given in all the official adventure modules, so no adjustments needed there) and you should be perfectly fine.
Running around trying to heal damage taken in combat is so counter-productive. It just doesn't make any sense and if a party tries this tactic, I don't see them being very successful.
They're set to heal up in downtime, sure, but name me a party in 5e that has trouble healing up during a short rest and I'll show you a party that must have specifically gone out of their way to make a gimped out group.