I suppose I should be able to understand why people are concerned about the absence of healing spells, from the simple rule of that people generally think they want what they are already familiar with. But still,.. I see people here, which I normally tend to agree with, being critical, and people, I sometimes disagree with, embracing and defending the no healing spells system.
Well, I believe no healing spells is a good thing. A development in the right direction. The game will not become more difficult, just differently balanced. The effect is that the party health will be affected across many sequential fights.
Why is this a good thing?
First, because it ties in the combat with the emergent story and the roleplay. The player need to consider attrition and take strategic responsibility for the party.
It also means that fights can be much more mixed up and varied. Opposition can vary wildly in strength from fight to fight. An easy fight need also be seriously considered, because of the attrition it will bring. That makes it meaningful. And I happen to think that all this makes the combat element so much more satisfying and integrated in the game. To me, it feels richer, better. I always found the very 'set' fights in DA:O and DA2 unsatisfying. In those games the fights were isolated events, with everything reset before and after. Just like you played a separate videogame between the story elements.
Having autohealth results in such combat. And when you have a manna-system for magic, healing spells becomes the same as auto-health. That's why it's necessary to remove the healing spells.
I wish people were less scared of this. We will experience combat more like we did in BG and IWD. I happen to think this is a good thing.