Give Healing Spells an Ability Check

[LeonBH]

I just had a thought and I'm curious what these boards think about it.

What if healing spells, such as Cure Wounds and Healing Word, required an ability check to hit and not just always work, the same as an attack roll? Aside from making healing harder, what does this change?

[Rysto]

It turns healing from a move that's usually suboptimal to LOLNOPE.

[Cybren]

I just had a thought and I'm curious what these boards think about it.

What if healing spells, such as Cure Wounds and Healing Word, required an ability check to hit and not just always work, the same as an attack roll? Aside from making healing harder, what does this change?

it makes healing harder and, presuming that casters don't automatically gain proficiency, will make curmudgeon optimizes call it a "proficiency tax" as now they feel obligated to take the medicine skill. Maybe a softer alternative is to let them make a medicine check against some DC, perhaps fixed, perhaps not, and if they succeed they maximize the dice from a healing spell they cast using an action, or get to reroll them and take the better, or something.

[LeonBH]

it makes healing harder and, presuming that casters don't automatically gain proficiency, will make curmudgeon optimizes call it a "proficiency tax" as now they feel obligated to take the medicine skill. Maybe a softer alternative is to let them make a medicine check against some DC, perhaps fixed, perhaps not, and if they succeed they maximize the dice from a healing spell they cast using an action, or get to reroll them and take the better, or something.

I was imagining they should have proficiency in the check, since it's a spell they're casting. The idea with awarding a high roll for it with max healed HP is really rather good, though. Perhaps set up the DC so that, on average, there is a net increase in healed HP as compared with 1d8+Ability Mod due to the chance to do max healing.

[MeeposFire]

Yea I would go no thanks for me. If I am healing in combat things are bad and I cannot afford to miss with that needed heal. Unless the bonus to it was massive (more than just getting a max roll or the like) then it would not be worth it to me.

[Beelzebubba]

Why do this?

What are you trying to do?

[BiPolar]

Why do this?

What are you trying to do?

Agreed, it seems that the 5e system is basically "buffs are gimmes, damaging/debuffs are not." If you alter that for healing or any other buff, then you likely need to boost their efficacy and create fail/save scenarios as well.

[Corran]

Mmmm, it would make healing even less useful than it is now.

On the other hand, it would probably make medicine useful (assuming that this is the check you associate with healing -could be religion or nature too, but healing classes are usually wis based). I would assume that we would see a lot of rogue dips for expertise in that healing check (if you have a skill work with it I guess - starngely enough, bards who can also heal, would be able to use a skill that they dont have a good mod with, but with expertise, and without dipping, so that would balance things out somehow).

Overall, I dont think it is a very good idea (for balance reasons). But it would probably fit a grim setting where healing magic is scarce.

[Coidzor]

I just had a thought and I'm curious what these boards think about it.

What if healing spells, such as Cure Wounds and Healing Word, required an ability check to hit and not just always work, the same as an attack roll? Aside from making healing harder, what does this change?

It makes healing even worse than it already is in comparison to attacks. It's already not worth it to heal someone until they're downed or they're in that narrow state between any hit being able to knock them down and making them able to take at least one more decent hit before they go down.

It takes agency away from players and limits them.

Unless the group of players are masochists, it decreases fun.

Healing potions would become even more of a wealth sink.

Perceptions of the DM would likely be diminished.

[Dudewithknives]

Technical is is a touch spell.
If you want them to have to roll a melee spell attack to touch them that is fine but the the target ac for it should be a flat 10 because the target wants to be hit with it.
Also it should have the chance to crit on a 20 for a double strength heal.

[Slipperychicken]

Technical is is a touch spell.
If you want them to have to roll a melee spell attack to touch them that is fine but the the target ac for it should be a flat 10 because the target wants to be hit with it.
Also it should have the chance to crit on a 20 for a double strength heal.

You don't need to roll to lay a hand on someone who isn't trying to resist.

[Dudewithknives]

You don't need to roll to lay a hand on someone who isn't trying to resist.

I know that, the point of thread was asking how it would change things.

[MrStabby]

Well healing would become scarce. Not just because healing spells wouldn't be cast. Clerics wouldn't prepare them, bards wouldn't learn them.

Are you finding healing is too powerful at your table? Are characters not being dead ruining your fun?

[KorvinStarmast]

Agreed, it seems that the 5e system is basically "buffs are gimmes, damaging/debuffs are not."
If you alter that for healing or any other buff, then you likely need to boost their efficacy and create fail/save scenarios as well. Nicely put.

I just had a thought and I'm curious what these boards think about it.

What if healing spells, such as Cure Wounds and Healing Word, required an ability check to hit and not just always work, the same as an attack roll? Aside from making healing harder, what does this change? It utterly undermines how healing works through 5 editions of the game. Is there a point to your wanting to do this, other than to annoy the players?

I know that, the point of thread was asking how it would change things. Presuming the players stay at the table, they'd buy a lot more healing potions.

[Quoxis]

I like the idea, i'd advise to make it a medicine check BUT replace wis (or is it int?) with the class' casting stat, so clerics heal with a wis(medicine) check while bards do a cha(medicine) one and so on.
Making them auto-proficient with medicine checks is too much imo; a normal medicine check to stabilize a creature doesn't get that either, so why should a (much stronger) healing spell?

If i were to implement this system, i'd make it a DC 10 check regardless of spell and difficulty, if you fail the check you heal only half the rolled amount, on a 1 you heal nothing and on a 20 double the rolled amount. Given that a specialized healer can add their proficiency bonus and casting stat, a +5 modifier on lvl 1 and auto-success on high levels should be sufficient to balance it.

[LeonBH]

Quoxis, that is actually a really good idea. Perhaps the crit range on it should be 19-20? If so, I think it works out to a net gain for healing spells on average, with an always guaranteed heal even on a failed check.

[MeeposFire]

Actually this reminds me of a table where they actually thought they had to do this. It was a 3e game and the DM thought you had to roll to hit your allies with healing spells. The players really did not like it in that game. The cleric got hit twice though because healing was made worse and that made him not want to heal but the rest of the table was upset because he was not healing enough.

[AttilatheYeon]

Actually this reminds me of a table where they actually thought they had to do this. It was a 3e game and the DM thought you had to roll to hit your allies with healing spells. The players really did not like it in that game. The cleric got hit twice though because healing was made worse and that made him not want to heal but the rest of the table was upset because he was not healing enough.

I think in 3e u do have to make a touch attack against AC 10 or something to heal tgere friends. This also mean u can crit a heal 😁

[Honest Tiefling]

It turns healing from a move that's usually suboptimal to LOLNOPE.

"Oh? You're injured? I could heal you...But I don't have enough spells. Time to go to pasture, buddy. Barbarian, make it quick and let's roll up a new character."

Sounds like you just want a system to reward taking medicine for healing classes, but no one wants to take it because medicine doesn't do much. So why not give Medicine a better use of some sort? Making a high ability score mandatory doesn't seem in line with the goals of 5e, so I am confused as to what the intention is. Even if it is a DC 10 check, it makes lower levels more lethal and becomes an annoyance 5% of the time for higher levels. Basically, a failure on a 1 means that 5% of all healing spells basically fail.

A quicker and dirtier fix would be to allow a feat or something to add a casting ability score to all healing spells. An item, maybe? Not powerful, but easier to keep track of and not penalizing people already taking on a role most people don't care for.

[MeeposFire]

I think in 3e u do have to make a touch attack against AC 10 or something to heal tgere friends. This also mean u can crit a heal 😁

Actually that is not correct.

"Touch Spells in Combat

Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. "

So if you use a cure spell on a friend success is automatic but if you use it to attack an enemy (such as a vampire) then you would roll an attack.

[Hrugner]

Aside from it seeming like a terrible idea, and being unclear on what problem it's intending to solve, here you go.

You'd need to look at what the challenge is in healing someone, and determine how that challenge is modified by events. You'd need to determine what, if anything, imposes advantage or disadvantage on healing someone. You'd need to remove or replace rulings that allow you to forgo saving throws when you don't want to resist. You'd need to set the DC to something, but without any player stats to go on you wouldn't have much to work with. Maybe the nearest opponent blocks or intercepts the heal somehow?

[McNinja]

Quoxis, that is actually a really good idea. Perhaps the crit range on it should be 19-20? If so, I think it works out to a net gain for healing spells on average, with an always guaranteed heal even on a failed check.
So the point would be... what? As everyone else has said, forcing to hit rolls on healing spells makes healing (and healers) objectively worse, but if you make the heal guaranteed, that negates the entire point of this little thought experiment.

Nothing about this is good or improves the game in any way.

[LeonBH]

Thank you all for your thoughts. Rest assured I was posing a hypothetical. If you guys don't like it, please keep your shirts on and try not to get riled up.

The point is to explore the healing mechanic. Many of the first responders to this thread already denounce healing and say it is a bad use of your action. I would love for them to create a mechanic that solves their own ire. For myself, it is just to question and to prod.

[Arkhios]

I didn't notice if it came up yet, but here goes. While in general I wouldn't use such a system myself, I can see how it could be an interesting idea. Assuming I'd support the idea, I would prefer that the healing spell wouldn't be wasted if you don't "hit" with it. That way, you'd only waste your action and you could just wait for another turn to deliver the spell.