[3.P] Revamping the Cure Wounds line

[Novawurmson]

I recently played a healing/support Cleric from about level 5 to level 16, and my experience taught me several things about healing in combat, besides the fact that it often sucks.

The Problem of Healing in Combat

1. Healing is often a bad idea in combat because it wastes actions. The less enemies moving, the less damage your party takes, so offense is often greater than defense.

2. Healing in combat is often a bad idea because the amount healed is so low. Cure Light Wounds cures 1d8+1/CL points of damage - fine if your enemy is wielding a longsword and has a Strength of 13, but terrible if your enemy is wielding a greatsword with a Str of 18. Even worse, healing scales incredibly terribly compared with both damaging spells and melee attacks.

3. Healing in combat is often impossible because most healing spells are range "touch."

4. Healing in combat is often terrible because of the almost binary nature between "1 HP, and I'm good to go" and "dead."

5. Random chance is bad for players, and the amount healed in a cure x wounds spell is heavily decided by random chance. Healing 9 damage in a round with a max roll cure light wounds at level 1 is great; healing 2 damage under the same circumstances is awful.

6. The "Cure X Wounds" stops at level 4, going into Heal and Mass Cure X Wounds - Heal being extremely powerful, Mass Cure X wounds healing for piddly amounts.

Math!

http://imgur.com/LkakTdR

Image isn't displaying in preview, so here's a link: http://imgur.com/LkakTdR

Assuming the spell is an arcane spell doing 1d6 damage per caster level. The bestiary numbers are a reference to the average damage by CR (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/monster-creation) table from the Bestiary.

Referring to point #2, the amount that you can heal with a "cure x wounds" is rapidly outpaced by the amount of damage per round the average encounter will drop on your party.

However, there are several abilities that show how these flaws could be solved:

1. Quick Channel (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/quick-channel), Close Wounds (Spell Compendium), and Fast Aid (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/feats/fast-aid-psionic) are all examples of ways healing can be accomplished without spending standard actions.

2. When the spell Heal (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/h/heal) comes into play, healing goes from one of the weakest combat options to one of the most potent. At level 11, the average creature should be doing about 50 DPR, while Heal is healing for 110 damage - meaning with one standard action, you can accomplish what an opponent should be accomplishing in two full round actions. This shows us that a lot of the problem is simply the amount healed.

3. The PF Cleric's channel energy AoE heal and the Vitalist's collective healing show us that healing from range is extremely freeing from needing to hustle back and forth across the battle grid in medium armor.

4. The aforementioned Close Wounds as well as the Breath of Life (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/b/breath-of-life) spells show two ways of getting around the binary "1 HP, I'm fine/-1 HP, I'm dying" nature of the hit point system: Allowing either a lethal blow to be blocked or healing to occur after a "fatal" blow has been dealt.

5. Random chance I addressed in my own way: I've been allowing players to "take 6" whenever a healing effect that is calculated in d8's is rolled (i.e. a player who casts cure critical wounds could "take 6" and heal 24+CL instead of 4d8+CL).

6. New spells could be made that scale into high levels.

My Proposed Solution

With all this in mind, allow me to suggest the following changes to the cure wounds line. All classes that get the original "cure x wounds" receive the new spells at the appropriate levels. The spell Heal and Mass Heal would need to be reworked (probably halving their healing to 5/caster level level), but Breath of Life could stay in as-is.


Cure Wounds I
School: Conjuration (Healing)
Level: alchemist 1, bard 1, cleric/oracle 1, druid 1, inquisitor 1, paladin 1, ranger 1, witch 1
Casting Time: Standard (see text)
Components: V, S
Range: Close (25ft.+5 ft. per two caster levels) (see text)
Target: One ally
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw; Will half (harmless); see text; Spell Resistance: yes (harmless); see text

Sensing the deep pain of an ally, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage. Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell deals damage to them instead of curing their wounds. An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.

When you cast this spell, you can make a number of choices:

1. When using this spell to cure damage, you can choose to "take 5" when casting this spell. Instead of rolling a d8, simply add 5 to the amount healed.

2. If you cast this spell with a range (touch), add your caster level to the amount healed.

3. You can choose to cast this spell as an immediate action when an ally with range takes damage, but the amount healed drops to 1d4. This healing can prevent an ally from dying. You can choose to "take 3" when using Cure Wounds I in this way. You cannot use this version of cure wounds I to damage an undead creature.

Cure Wounds II
Level: Level alchemist 2, bard 2, cleric/oracle 2, druid 3, inquisitor 2, paladin 2, ranger 2, witch 2; Domain healing 2

This spell functions like cure wounds I, except that it cures 3d8 points of damage.

Cure Wounds III
Level: alchemist 3, bard 3, cleric/oracle 3, druid 4, inquisitor 3, paladin 3, ranger 3, witch 4; Domain healing 3

This spell functions like cure wounds I, except that it cure 5d8 damage.

For the sake of brevity:
Cure Wounds IV - 7d8
Cure Wounds V - 9d8
Cure Wounds VI - 11d8
Cure Wounds VII - 13d8
Cure Wounds VIII - 15d8
Cure Wounds IX - 17d8


Cure Wounds I, Mass
Level: 5
Target: one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions like cure wounds I, except as above and you always add your caster level to the amount healed, not just when casting the spell with range (touch).

Cure Wounds II, Mass
Level: 6
Target: one creature/level, no two of which can be more than 30 ft. apart

This spell functions like cure wounds II, except as above and you always add your caster level to the amount healed, not just when casting the spell with range (touch).

Brevity again:

Cure Wounds III, Mass - Cleric/Oracle 7
Cure Wounds IV, Mass - Cleric/Oracle 8
Cure Wounds V, Mass - Cleric/Oracle 9

Math and Goals, Revisited

http://imgur.com/QV0whvK

Again, image doesn't seem to be showing up, so here's the link: http://imgur.com/QV0whvK

It's important to note that 1d6/level spells equal the healing per level spells perfect if they can get just +1 damage per d6 (like Energy Ray (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/energyRay.htm), or most psionic damage dealing powers in general).

Let's refer to our original goals:

1. Action economy: The main line of healing spells can now always be used as an immediate action.

2. Raw Healing per Round: Increased at all levels (except, perhaps, level 1) and balanced against expected incoming damage from the average encounter, while also avoiding the extreme over-healing that the Heal spell makes.

3. Range: The main line of healing spells can be cast from range, but provide greater benefit at range of touch.

4. Binary HP: The main line of healing spells can now prevent an ally from death (increasing the window of opportunity that healing is helpful).

5. Randomness: Completely optional with the "take 5" concept baked into the spells.

6. New Spells: Made.


The Next Steps?

If I was going to add anything else to this concept, it'd probably be more feats for healers. I'd like a feat that includes the primary casting modifier, a feat that allows all cure spells to be used like breath of life, maybe more. Ranks in Heal seem like a good balancing point.

TL;DR: Six things that keep healing in combat from being optimal are the action economy issues, the amount healed compared with incoming damage, the range of healing spells, the binary nature of HP, the randomness inherent in rolling dice, and the fact that new single-target healing spells stop coming after spell level 5. Here's an attempt to fix these things.

Thoughts? Opinions? Hate?

[The Mentalist]

I did a similar revamp but instead of flat Xd8 I went with Xd8 per Y Caster Levels where Y got smaller as the spell levels went up. I think your Cure Wounds I would have been 1d8/6CL+CL. The high level ones (7,8,&9) also healed 1, 1d3, and 1d4 points of ability damage (but that was more because I was DMing for a table that threw around a lot of ability damage on both sides of the table)

I also made a special note that all spells from the [Healing] subschool (which I moved to Necromancy) could receive metamagic at one level adjustment lower than usual (minimum 0)

Healing was still sub-optimal but it was less like a drop in the ocean. This looks like it will have the same effect. I especially like the "pull them from death" add-on

[JusticeZero]

The main issue I see is that you make a lot of statements about healing being less than optimal in combat - which are true - then immediately follow by assuming that this is a bad thing without actually justifying that position. Many people who also frequently play Clerics would argue that that factor is a positive. Healing has always been the way I gauge whether an encounter is circling the drain. If someone is spamming healing - two heals in a row is usually a good indicator - then we really need to call a retreat, because we're in a death spiral. Having the heals be stopgap is a way to better enforce good play. Taking a T1 and using them purely as a bandage dispenser is simply incompetent.

[The Mentalist]

Taking a T1 and using them purely as a bandage dispenser is simply incompetent.

I don't think it's that he wants them PURELY as a bandage dispenser, but as it stands Healing kind of sucks until you get Heal, being able to pull back and take a few rounds to heal up, or even to just drop a heal on your Warblade because he took a crit or two should be a valid tactic and it currently is not. The Cleric will still be CoDzilla, it just has other options if you don't want to make your party mundanes look bad for every fight.

[ArcturusV]

I'd probably go with something a bit... different.

If I was going to Revamp the Cure X spells, this is probably how it'd do it.

Cure Minor Wounds: Remains as is. For a cantrip/orison it's quite useful for the "Save a guy who's bleeding out", and I feel that's about right.

Cure Light Wounds: 1d4 per caster level, touch spell. Yes, strictly worse at level 1. Almost always a better deal at level 2. Better deal in general if you have the Healing Domain at level 1, making Clerics/Cloister Clerics and others with Domains better healers than random Bards, Druids, Rangers, Paladins... which I"m fine with.

Cure Moderate Wounds: 1d6 per caster level, Close Range spell. At the point you get this one? Bam. Instantly a better return than the old one. Puts it on line with "suboptimal" blasts as far as damage being done is. But I don't find that to be a problem.

Cure Major Wounds: 1d6 per caster level. Two modes. One is a single target, close range spell. If done this way the spell is Empowered for free (No delay casting or higher spell slots). Or can be done an an emanation centered on one corner of the caster's spacing, effecting all targets in a 15' radius (Yes, friend and enemy).

Not sure how it'd do out necessarily. But those would be some nice changes I'd think, and I'd be comfortable running them in a game. I almost always run low-mid level games (Well, what I suppose others call low to mid, starting at one and by the time we hit twelve retirement is around the bend, if not already there). So I'm not too concerned with higher level spell slots personally.

[avr]

Personally, I wouldn't make a healing spell as good as an attack, or close to it. Good in-combat healing can make for slow combats (yes, I like the fast combat of 3.x more than the slow combat of 4e) & makes the healer spend most of their spell slots on healing rather than more interesting spells.

The MMO healer role can stay in MMO's when I get a choice about it.

[Adanedhel]

Honestly?

I believe the Cleric is strong enough as is.
Don't forget that PF already has a dedicated healing class: The Vitalist.
(Since you say 3.P rather than PF, I'm taking it you're not to averse on alternate versions of healing).

If you want to pursue this line of though however, I'd take a look at the Vitalist, and at the handbook written by Psyren. It lights all the flaws of curative magic, and how the Vitalist gets around them, which might make it a very good example to build from, rather than just increasing amount cured.

EDIT: nevermind this post, I managed to read over the range: touch flaw in your description, largely rending my point moot. Typically me.

[Vertharrad]

How I would do it - cure spells from lvl1-5 heal 1d8 per caster level+1 per 2 caster levels bonus to one target within close range, lvl6-9 spells you have 2 options the original single target or 1d8 per 2 caster levels+1 per caster level to 1 target per caster level within a 40ft radius of the caster(you can exclude a creature if you want). Inflict does damage rather than healing.

Have it where to prepare you need to have a certain alignment - cure and heal(good), inflict and harm(evil), neutrals can pick either. Magic items can be used normally even scrolls so even evil people have a source of healing.

[Psyren]

I like the idea of making healing ranged baseline, with a large bonus/incentive if you can touch them. That encourages the thematic tropes (Healing Hands, and the cleric desperately running across the battlefield to save a downed ally) but allows for a distance save in an emergency without costly metamagic and other resources.

I would make it a ranged touch attack/ray - possibly with a bonus to hit since you're aiming it at an ally - to maintain the disadvantages of effects like Confusion or Resilient Sphere, as well as keep its effectiveness offensively vs undead largely unchanged.

[Soupz]

The main issue I see is that you make a lot of statements about healing being less than optimal in combat - which are true - then immediately follow by assuming that this is a bad thing without actually justifying that position.

Agree. I'm guessing OP had MMOs before D&D and expects D&D to follow MMOs feel of healing.


I would make it a ranged touch attack/ray - possibly with a bonus to hit since you're aiming it at an ally - to maintain the disadvantages of effects like Confusion or Resilient Sphere, as well as keep its effectiveness offensively vs undead largely unchanged.

There was a feat to change touch into rays, though the spell level increase would probably make it not worth using.

Probably the best healing system I've had in a game had different damage types that required different things to heal, several steps to surgery requiring certain equipment (or improvised ghetto surgery), diseases that required different cures, healing over time, no significant way to heal during combat, the ability to clone the dead readily available if the body hasn't been eating or obliterated. Dragging the dying and dead out of dangerous areas was a big part of the game when things started going to hell and people needed cloned, borged, or evac'd.

Readily available powerful heals make you reckless in a game. You think less about lethal or significant consequences to actions. The stakes are lower. It makes the game less intense. It's not a direction I would want to push a game towards.

[Novawurmson]

Honestly?

I believe the Cleric is strong enough as is.
Don't forget that PF already has a dedicated healing class: The Vitalist.
(Since you say 3.P rather than PF, I'm taking it you're not to averse on alternate versions of healing).

If you want to pursue this line of though however, I'd take a look at the Vitalist, and at the handbook written by Psyren. It lights all the flaws of curative magic, and how the Vitalist gets around them, which might make it a very good example to build from, rather than just increasing amount cured.

EDIT: nevermind this post, I managed to read over the range: touch flaw in your description, largely rending my point moot. Typically me.

Yes! I love the vitalist and helped playtest Psionics Expanded. Running vitalist NPCs with the swift aid feat helped me think about the action problems inherent in healing.


Agree. I'm guessing OP had MMOs before D&D and expects D&D to follow MMOs feel of healing.

I started writing and playing tabletop RPGs at about age 8 (my parents played in their youth). I didn't play an MMO until college, but I do think that tabletop RPGs can learn from video games.


Readily available powerful heals make you reckless in a game. You think less about lethal or significant consequences to actions. The stakes are lower. It makes the game less intense. It's not a direction I would want to push a game towards.

The problem is that 3.5 is already a rocket-tag game; it's almost always better to put more into defense than offense. That doesn't have to stay the same though: By making defensive/support options scale better, with more interesting decision-making, they can become an action option.

That's my real incentive for writing this up: Healing is not an option in combat for most casters (with the exception of Heal and Breath of Life). It's not to make healing a better option, or a more attractive option, but to make it a reasonable option.

[Soupz]

The problem is that 3.5 is already a rocket-tag game; it's almost always better to put more into defense than offense. That doesn't have to stay the same though: By making defensive/support options scale better, with more interesting decision-making, they can become an action option.

That's my real incentive for writing this up: Healing is not an option in combat for most casters (with the exception of Heal and Breath of Life). It's not to make healing a better option, or a more attractive option, but to make it a reasonable option.

Healing isn't a combat option. Traditionally you would prefer injuring people to take them out of combat and weigh down your enemy's resources.

Let's see.. Traditional combat options are seige, withdrawal, attack by fire, flank, direct assault, encircling.. Healing during combat isn't a thing and is only an option in this because it's magic and it's a game.

Decision making is extremely flexible with Clerics as it is. Spontaneous casting lets you choose your utility and drop it as you need to to heal. If there weren't spontaneous casting I might consider this.

Is there a particular video game that you think is worth emulating? I usually play support, healers, combat medics, clerics, chemists and that sort of thing no matter the game. If you can add a little bit of damage they rock PVP almost always and in a disaster you feel like you can save everybody.

[ArcturusV]

... *makes obligatory references to the many corpsmen on the battle lines* Healing in combat IS a thing, if you're going by historical/realistic standards. People receiving aid and triage to keep them fighting (Or able to survive the fight)? All the time. DnD has it happen less often than reality, I'd wager.

[Soupz]

... *makes obligatory references to the many corpsmen on the battle lines* Healing in combat IS a thing, if you're going by historical/realistic standards. People receiving aid and triage to keep them fighting (Or able to survive the fight)? All the time. DnD has it happen less often than reality, I'd wager.

Medieval warfare is described as most people going down after one hit. Unless you're Sean Bean. I don't know when you wouldn't be removing wounded from the front lines and trying to treat them during combat unless death was certain otherwise.

Ranger Medic Handbook says:


Care Under Fire
Major goals are to move casualty to safety, prevent further injury to the casualty or provider, stop life threatening external hemorrhage, and gain and maintain fire superiority - the best medicine on the battlefield.

Bold as quoted.

[Qc Storm]

A homebrew we're using :

"Cure" spells can be cast as a move action.

Whenever a cleric hits an enemy in melee, he can heal an ally within 30ft an amount equal to the highest healing spell he has prepared. (Taken from crusader, Martial Spirit).

Healing has seen some use since then. However our clerics do not play DivineMetaPersistDestroyPower, so they are not melee monsters.

[Novawurmson]

Let's see.. Traditional combat options are seige, withdrawal, attack by fire, flank, direct assault, encircling.. Healing during combat isn't a thing and is only an option in this because it's magic and it's a game.

I'm not sure what game you're playing, but in D&D/PF, standard combat options include attacking five or more times in six seconds, flying, or turning into a bear.

Edit: I understand that these are traditional options for real-world combat, but try to remember that we're playing a game of wizards, gods, and half-dragon gelatinous cubes. Part of the fun for me is understanding how a world infused with magic would work. It's one of the reasons I like Eberron. It's a world where magic is more used and understood.

[Soupz]

I understand that these are traditional options for real-world combat, but try to remember that we're playing a game of wizards, gods, and half-dragon gelatinous cubes. Part of the fun for me is understanding how a world infused with magic would work. It's one of the reasons I like Eberron. It's a world where magic is more used and understood.

That's where we're having trouble finding common ground. I'm trying to get you to think of things outside of the terms of Dungeons and Dragons. I'd explain with another example, but I have a feeling I'd lose you again on why it's important.

I still want to know, in what MMOs or other video games did you especially like the feel of healing or being a healer?

I still stand by my statement that readily available powerful healing allows for more recklessness and lowers the stakes involved in the game. Lower stakes mean decisions are less important because failures can be more easily forgiven.

[Toofey]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?271960-Cure-inflict-wounds-spells-revision/page4&p=5093168&viewfull=1#post5093168

Based on that old post, my changes are:


The cure spell series is a swift action to cast if used to heal a willing target (ie. the spell is naturally a swift action to cast; if you are intending to make a touch "attack", the touch attack is what consumes the standard action).
cure/inflict wounds I always heals at least 10% of the target's max hp, or the RAW amount, whichever is higher.
cure/inflict wounds II always heals at least 20% of the target's max hp, or the RAW amount, whichever is higher.
cure/inflict wounds III always heals at least 30% of the target's max hp, or the RAW amount, whichever is higher.
cure/inflict wounds IV always heals at least 40% of the target's max hp, or the RAW amount, whichever is higher.
heal/harm always heals at least 50% of the target's max hp, or the RAW amount, whichever is higher.
When used to inflict damage, the cure/inflict spells do not benefit from these changes.


Note that if you simply up the numbers, the cure/inflict spells have massive weapon potential, which will almost certainly change conventional cleric tactics.

We had a DM impliment this in 3rd ed (that said we always took max hp per level) and we found that it made healing less useful at very low (1st-3rd) level when the die roll was almost always more than the percentage, I'm not sure how it compares. When I dm I have the spells under 3rd level work on a point basis and over 3rd work on a percentage, you may want to consider a similar breakpoint.

[Angelmaker]

What I did in my last Gestalt Group was to introduce the option of casting cure spells as a swift option with range close at the price of the cure spell only healing half of what it usually does. I didn't want to let in combat healing become an attractive option but I wanted to have an additional resource drain on my players.

And it worked like a charm.

It was quite a large group ( 6 players ) and I added additional rules like being able to form regiments, to stop the rocket tag 3.5 is. It worked really well. Healing with that rule is always a "it does not break the action economy, but is it really worth it?" matter.

Good feedback from my gestalt group.

Edit: However, I always design my encounter NOT on a 4 encounter per day basis, so having an additional resource drain is not what your party might be able to afford. Usually, I have two or either one long running encounter with added reinforcements and support to make them more epic. Works for my group, but ymmv.

[Phelix-Mu]

Hello. No time to read the whole thread, but as DM, I don't like that healing actions can return really stupidly low amounts of hp on low rolls. I ballpark all cure spells at 90-100% of maximum value, allowing the player to roll and usually accepting only a 7 or 8 on a d8 (ignoring for the moment that this isn't quite the range I just mentioned). Depending on the campaign, I might not even allow a roll, and just go with the full amount. As DM, I can confidently say that I can hurt the pcs faster than they can heal, so if someone wants to try it, I don't want Lady Luck to sabotage the action any further.

Still, unless there is some carrier effect, or it's a mass version of a cure spell, it's very subpar in combat (but sometimes no less necessary). Even with the few exceptions, most of the time a kill spell or buff is a better option.

[DR27]

This fix doesn't acknowledge one of the main flaws of healing - action economy. Players won't be healing in combat if it costs them their own action unless it is a dire situation, or clearly outpaces the rate that they could remove enemies themselves. Think about it. The reason that Heal is actually used, but none of the cure line end up used is that Heal will be giving your target back both actions (when adverse conditions are applied) and healing more than the damage they will be taking in a single round (hopefully). You might be talking Pathfinder, but late 3.5 realized this deficiency and gave us spells like Close Wounds (doesn't affect your own actions), Panacea (removes adverse conditions, giving allies actions back), Channeled Divine Health (you choose what actions to give up), etc. And the Crusader.

What are you planning to shore this problem up? Giving healbots more dice isn't going to affect things that much.

[Captnq]

I don't like the lack of research into other healing spells. I count 46 spells that can heal people.

Try HERE (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=4829.0) for my thread on every form of healing spell and the GP/HP healing analysis. Then get back to me on if the Cure Line needs to be revamped.

For example, did you even LOOK at insignia of Healing in a Wand?

Insignia of Healing Enlarged (Spell Level 4 / Caster Level 10): 30010 gp
Healing: 1d8 hp + 10 = Avg 14.5 (41.39 gp/hp)
Max Targets: YES (0.000000000000001 gp/hp)
Okay, so you spend 69,990 gp on six thousand nine hundred and ninty nine insignias (So you spend an even 100,000 gp). As long as they are within 1600 feet of you, your side will heal 14.5 hps on a charge. Use the wand twice a minute, only a small percentage of guys will actually bleed to death from their wounds, and watch your army walk through anything that gets in their way over the next half hour. Did the enemy blot out the sun with arrows? Why hide behind the shields? You’ll be fine in a minute anyways. The movie ‘300’ would have had a vastly different outcome if they had this wand. Heck, call your army ‘The Immortals’ and have a few dozen of these puppies at the ready. They really WILL never die.

[Captnq]

Close wounds spell is from Miniatures Handbook, which is borderline 3.0/3.5 material. Not exactly late 3.5.

Close wounds was reprinted in Spell Compendium.

[DR27]

Close wounds spell is from Miniatures Handbook, which is borderline 3.0/3.5 material. Not exactly late 3.5.And totally invalidates the point that it's action economy that dissuades players from healing

[navar100]

Healing in combat is not a terrible idea. It's not always worth doing but neither is it never worth doing.

1) It is not absolutely necessary for the cleric to be the one who "gets the kill". The act of a cleric healing someone is not a waste of action, in a vacuum. Circumstances do matter.

2) Preventing a party member from dropping or even being killed is a worthy tactic. Keeping a party member conscious allows that party member to do stuff, who might be able to do more than the cleric could. The cleric does not have the most perfect spell needed every time all the time. By all means cast Holy Word, Dispel Magic, or even just blast with Flame Strike when doing so will significantly help win the combat. Sometimes it's good to conserve your most potent spells for a later combat of the day.

3) If you need to deal with numbers, it's not important if the amount you heal is more than the amount of damage a bad guy does. What matters is if the amount you heal plus the current amount of hit points your party member has is more than the amount of a damage a bad guy does. When such is the case the party member doesn't drop and can still do stuff.

4) Attacking with a spell is not a guarantee. Bad guys do make saving throws from time to time. You fail to get past spell resistance from time to time. Casting Hold Person, bad guy makes the save, bad guy proceeds to womp party member into Death's Door can happen. Had you healed the party member instead he wouldn't have dropped. That is not to say always heal never cast Hold Person. It just means that healing a valid tactic and just because you can cast Hold Person doesn't mean you automatically win. Still, cast Hold Person when appropriate. Sometimes it does win the day.

5) A cleric buffing himself with Divine Power and Righteous Might womping into combat is a valid tactic. For one combat. What does he do for the next combat? What happened in those two rounds of casting if the cleric wasn't able to buff before the combat started? Does the cleric even have the combat feats that make fighters and barbarians deadly? This is not to say never cast Divine Power and Righteous Might, only that they are not universal forever and ever the most awesome thing clerics should only do and never, ever heal in combat instead.

6) Pathfinder makes healing in combat easier and more efficient with Channel Energy. It does not use up spell slots, allowing the cleric to use even more buffing and attack spells per game day. It allows healing more than one party member at a range. That can stop at least two party members dropping for two party members' worth of actions while the cleric stays out of immediate danger.

7) You don't heal a party member just because they got hit in combat. You generally don't need to consider healing until someone is at less than 50% max. If you do have a potent spell that would help win the combat by all means cast it. However, if it's not so crucial keeping that party member alive so he can do something that is crucial is a valid tactic. Perhaps he's the fighter who hits for over 50 points of damage a round. Perhaps he's the wizard who can cast Stinking Cloud. Half max hit points is not set in stone. Depending on the situation the combat might be over in a round or two anyway. Maybe the bad guys aren't doing that much damage and being less than half max still means the party member can take a lot of hits. Maybe he's not even being hit that often.

There are lots of variables. Healing in combat is a tactic. It's not an I autowin the combat tactic nor I autolose the combat. The situation at hand matters. Sometimes spending a round healing is the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it is vital. It takes practice to recognize which round is when.

[Psyren]

6) Pathfinder makes healing in combat easier and more efficient with Channel Energy. It does not use up spell slots, allowing the cleric to use even more buffing and attack spells per game day. It allows healing more than one party member at a range. That can stop at least two party members dropping for two party members' worth of actions while the cleric stays out of immediate danger.

It can also be done as a move action with the right feats, so it doesn't even have to interrupt spellcasting.

[Phelix-Mu]

Healing in combat is not a terrible idea. It's not always worth doing but neither is it never worth doing.

...snip...

There are lots of variables. Healing in combat is a tactic. It's not an I autowin the combat tactic nor I autolose the combat. The situation at hand matters. Sometimes spending a round healing is the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it is vital. It takes practice to recognize which round is when.

Nice analysis. I largely agree, and like PF, find that a little more numerical/action efficiency is called for in the numbers underlining healing. I also generally ballpark hp at 90% for everyone, though, so healing really does need a boost.

In general, a DM with decent mastery that is the match of the op-level of the characters can always crank up the overkill level (or, if absolutely necessary, ratchet it back...:smallwink:).

Keeping people alive in combat is very important, and combats are (at least at my table) often not as clear-cut as they may seem. Enemies have unexpected immunities, have their own buffer/healers, have contingencies, or backup is on the way and out-of-combat healing might not be possible before the next wave.

As to the specific proposed fix:
- Avoid "add CL wounds healed" unless you have first dealt with the quagmire of ways to boost CL to stratospheric levels.

- Consider making this all apply only to "spells cast personally" not to spells from spell-trigger or spell-completion items. Otherwise, out-of-combat healing spell efficiency is also boosted (rather ambitiously), which was not the aim of the fix.

[DR27]

Reprinting an item doesn't mean it was first created at a later date.It makes no difference when it was printed first, the casting time change of swift to immediate (and lower spell level) when it was updated to the Spell Compendium is what really what made it a viable combat action. The idea I was trying to convey is that action economy problems are what make in-combat healing so unappealing. Spells like that one, or Devoted Spirt maneuvers that heal while attacking will generally be preferable to spending a standard action. That realization wasn't made by the devs until later in the publishing cycle, but the timing of when the devs realized that concept wasn't the important idea being communicated.

[Gullintanni]

My players make use of in combat healing because I run them through marathon combat sessions. If my low-mid level party happens to wander into a small encampment of Lizardfolk, they usually end up fighting over a dozen opponents. Usually only 3-5 at a time mind you.

However; the particular encounter I have in mind had the lizardfolk firing flaming arrows into the sky as a signal that nearby hunting parties should return to defend the camp.

So my party would end up fighting many many opponents before the encounter ended, none particularly threatening on their own, but...several party members ended up at low health a couple of times during combat. In combat healing kept the party refreshed enough to continue fighting until the battle was finished.

In combat healing, IMO, has a role in the current 3.5 paradigm, absent any alteration. That said, if you design encounters the way 3.5 wants you to, using even CR'd encounters four times a day, in combat healing generally doesn't serve much purpose.

[Phelix-Mu]

It makes no difference when it was printed first, the casting time change of swift to immediate (and lower spell level) when it was updated to the Spell Compendium is what really what made it a viable combat action. The idea I was trying to convey is that action economy problems are what make in-combat healing so unappealing. Spells like that one, or Devoted Spirt maneuvers that heal while attacking will generally be preferable to spending a standard action. That realization wasn't made by the devs until later in the publishing cycle, but the timing of when the devs realized that concept wasn't the important idea being communicated.

Well, not to nitpick, and nothing personal, but clearly not having to cost-benefit an analysis on two possible actions because you can do both with no drawback is superior to having to choose. But that doesn't mean that having to choose is somehow inherently flawed. Yes, the choice is difficult, has risks, and requires thought. But so does lots of other stuff, and having to choose doesn't alone make something inherently worth less/worthless.

In the world of balancing mechanics, allowing both A and B, instead of making both A and B worthwhile, is kind of a cop out. I find the solution appealing, but also somewhat inelegant. While action economy is clearly, and will always be, king, I don't think that it need always be the win-button for making a smooth playing mechanic that gives each class a way to be useful on the battlefield.

Just my opinion, really.