R U healing too much with spells?

[Dalebert]

The thread complaining about Healing Spirit and about how it's too good for out of combat healing inspired this thread. The whole thing felt kind of alien to me because I have trouble with the idea of using spells to heal out of combat at all. In my mind, spells are almost only ever used for healing in combat, and even then only in desperation. 5e was built so dedicated healers aren't even crucial anymore and in turn, the healing spells are very inefficient. Several classes have emergency healing like Healing Word or (OMG if you really have no other options then waste a precious action on) Cure Wounds. Healing Word's primary use is to get someone back into the fight who has been dropped to zero. You rarely use it sooner unless enemies are hitting really lightly and it could actually prevent someone from dropping in the first place.

This makes me question the tactics people are using if you find that you have to frequently use your spell slots on healing. It just seems like poor planning and time management. You're so preoccupied with putting out fires inefficiently that you're not taking more efficient action to prevent the fires in the first place. (Fire is an analogy btw) The actions you're using to heal (very inefficiently in this edition) may very well be able to prevent SO much more dmg from happening in the first place.

Drop an enemy if you can. He's no longer dealing dmg.
Crowd control enemies. Now they're not dealing dmg.
Buff allies so they can kill faster. Less overall dmg.
Is your party spreading dmg or focusing fire? Focus fire usually means less dmg.

Is your ally dropping terrifyingly fast from multiple enemies and you think they might keep beating him when he's down until he fails three saves? Yeah, heal him. It's painful and inefficient, but do it if you must. But if you have a way to use your precious actions to stop him taking all those hits, DO THAT!

Your spell slots are better used to end fights earlier and prevent dmg from ever happening. Take a short rest if you can. Drink healing potions after the fight if you can't take a rest. Be all healed up before the next fight or at least damn near to it one way or another, but save your slots and use them effectively in the next fight so you take less dmg.

Also, I want to establish the Dalebert standard--the minimum number of healing potions you should have saved up and available in case of dire need is 10 per tier. You get a little leeway in tier 1 and early tier 2 due to poverty but you should remedy that situation ASAP once you get a cash stream. After you have this many saved up, just replace them as needed after an adventure. I will not argue with anyone who wants a higher minimum than that. That's fine. This is my rock bottom minimum. If you have fewer than that, I don't feel like your character cares all that much about staying alive. You're an adventurer. You're putting yourself in imminent danger multiple times a day and there's a magical thing that can heal you. You want to be healed up before your next episode of imminent danger that day and you want to have as many spell slots available for that next episode of imminent danger as possible.

[ATHATH]

Well, tbh, what else are you going to use your low-level spell slots for when you reach higher levels? Saving money on healing potions (maybe even enough to buy a minor trinket or something later) seems like a pretty good use of them.

[mer.c]

You're always going to take attrition from combat (unless your DM planned poorly). Sometimes it's worth it to spend a spell slot to get everyone back on their feet, depending on the pacing, ability to rest, availability of healing potions in your campaign, etc.

But yeah, in-combat healing is usually a poor use of resources unless you're bringing someone back up.

[mephnick]

Depends on what style of game you're playing. I use the variant encumbrance (base encumbrance is a pointless rule) so carrying around 30 healing potions isn't generally an option. We also use the slow natural healing variant. It helps the game feel a little more classic that way. I also enforce the adventuring day pretty strictly, so you're going to be pretty sore by the last couple encounters. I still haven't found that "healer" is a necessary role, but healing out of combat by committee is a must. Sometimes that means spells. The new spell would basically make all of that obsolete.

But in the games I've played using just PHB rules, yeah, there isn't much point to using healing spells outside of saving an unconscious ally in combat. Hit Dice and the odd potion tend to be enough.

[Dhuraal]

Some of us are not playing a wargame.

Some of us are using houserules that make it so that going down is not inconsequential.

So, no. No we are not.

[Vaz]

Some of us are pretentious and like to think we're better and sneer at others for playing a game in a different way to them and talking about it in a discussion forum.

[Willie the Duck]

Some of us are pretentious and like to think we're better and sneer at others for playing a game in a different way to them and talking about it in a discussion forum.

Calm your venom. It should be hard to be upset with someone claiming one-true-wayism while at the same time accidentally making it look like their DM is playing on easy mode.

Dalebert, it was perhaps inadvisable to frame this thread like you were bringing wisdom to the foolish masses, compared to which you clearly know better. If you are truly questioning the tactics people are using if they find they have to frequently using tactics other than what you would use, you should probably try to determine what about their campaigns might be different than your own circumstances. This would help establish ahead of time whether it is your experience or others that is the outlier. After that we might be able to suss out whether you are playing more tactically sound than others or not, and whether you have any practical advice to share.

[Dhuraal]

Calm your venom. It should be hard to be upset with someone claiming one-true-wayism while at the same time accidentally making it look like their DM is playing on easy mode.

Dalebert, it was perhaps inadvisable to frame this thread like you were bringing wisdom to the foolish masses, compared to which you clearly know better. If you are truly questioning the tactics people are using if they find they have to frequently using tactics other than what you would use, you should probably try to determine what about their campaigns might be different than your own circumstances. This would help establish ahead of time whether it is your experience or others that is the outlier. After that we might be able to suss out whether you are playing more tactically sound than others or not, and whether you have any practical advice to share.

So..... so we aren't going to have an internet fight? :smallfrown:

In truth, I admit, my statement of "Some of us are not playing a wargame" is a provocative statement. The idea that D&D is a terrible system to use for roleplaying is a giant pet peeve of mine, and asserting that people must play tactically and optimally at all times or be "wrong" is a corollary of that. My irritation with it has a tendency to seep through.

Also, I was trying to reply quickly for why it might be different for others.

[Darkstar952]

Just how are you getting enough supply to meet that level of demand, especially if you consider it to be a standard for adventurers, as you then should assume that all NPC adventurers in the world will also be applying the same logic because as you point out they would be stupid not to.

Depending on if you consider the potion a magic item or not (I've seen it argued both ways as it appears as both a magic item in the DMG and as a standard item in the PHB) it would take 4 days or 10 days work respectively to replace each healing potion. With every adventuring party in the game world buying them up and chugging them like its going out of fashion soon supply will not be able to meet demand and prices will skyrocket.

[mer.c]

Calm your venom. It should be hard to be upset with someone claiming one-true-wayism while at the same time accidentally making it look like their DM is playing on easy mode.

Dalebert, it was perhaps inadvisable to frame this thread like you were bringing wisdom to the foolish masses, compared to which you clearly know better. If you are truly questioning the tactics people are using if they find they have to frequently using tactics other than what you would use, you should probably try to determine what about their campaigns might be different than your own circumstances. This would help establish ahead of time whether it is your experience or others that is the outlier. After that we might be able to suss out whether you are playing more tactically sound than others or not, and whether you have any practical advice to share.

+1. OP probably could have been condensed to "Using a spell slot and an action to cast a healing spell is usually sub-optimal." That would have been virtually the same thing, without the condescension or the (wildly off-base) assumption that every campaign must be exactly like the OP's.

[Kane0]

I have a magic cleric mace that gives me Cure Wounds as a cantrip currently, so I'm not super worried.

[Suicune]

I have a magic cleric mace that gives me Cure Wounds as a cantrip currently, so I'm not super worried.

I'm not sure what the DM was thinking with that. You can spam heal everyone to full after every encounter at zero cost.

[Kane0]

Yeah, cause every encounter is Deadly x3 or greater. Each fight is TPK material, attrition isn't a feature of that particular campaign.

It also provides a free Aura of Vitality (mace concentrates on it, not me) once per day, but to be honest 2d6 HP using a bonus action each round just doesn't cut it in a fight most of the time.

[CantigThimble]

There are exactly two healing spells worth using below level 10: Healing word and prayer of healing. Healing word is obviously to get people back in the fight. Prayer of Healing is incredibly efficient during long adventuring days. If you have access to unlimited healing potions and enough money to buy them then sure, out of combat healing is pointless, but if you don't (as it is in every campaign I've ever played) then prayer of healing is very good. It's basically two extra hit dice for the whole party on every cast. You can make the argument that you should use your slots to end the fight sooner, so people take less damage, instead, but honestly I don't see spiritual weapon or hold person saving the party 40-60 HP most of the time.

If the threat is a party wipe in one encounter, then prayer is useless and you're better off casting other spells. But if the threat is attrition, and the party isn't going into fights at full strength then prayer of healing is far more efficient than any other 2nd level spell.

In most of my campaigns, characters don't have 500 gold lying around until 6-7th level, and even then that money needs to be saved for other reasons, like paying for information, allies or transportation. 2-3 healing potions for emergencies? Sure, but more than that is going to start cutting into more important things than out of combat healing.

[Pex]

In my cleric game I've cast a healing spell exactly once, at 1st level in the first session. I'm now 8th level. Before level 4 we got by with healing potions and short rest HD spending. At level 4 I took the Healer feat. That alone heals more than any spell could. Healing potions and short rest HD spending are still used but not too often. The wizard and barbarian have a nice surplus of healing potions. The fighter has a few but gets by well enough with Second Wind and my Healer feat.

In my paladin game I've had to use Lay On Hands a lot and the cleric or bard does cast a good number of healing spells. While no one having Healer feat may be a factor, what I think is the true cause for more need of healing spells is the lack of healing potions. The game is significantly low in magic even a healing potion is rare. Metagame it's not normally a campaign I would play, but circumstances got me in and I do find myself enjoying it. However, the scarcity of magic items, even healing potions, is frustrating and hurts the party.

In my wizard game I'd say healing spells are used at a subjectively normal rate. Enough for players to appreciate but not too much those who do the healing (druid, bard, cleric) share the job and do not feel like a healbot. Healing spells are used to prevent dropping or worry about death saves. Resting is our main healing.

[Suicune]

Yeah, cause every encounter is Deadly x3 or greater. Each fight is TPK material, attrition isn't a feature of that particular campaign.

It also provides a free Aura of Vitality (mace concentrates on it, not me) once per day, but to be honest 2d6 HP using a bonus action each round just doesn't cut it in a fight most of the time.

Ah, sorry, that was rude of me. I had attrition on the mind and the idea that the mace was better suited to a campaign without one skipped my mind.

[Kane0]

S'all good. Sometimes my table likes to break the game a bit. Really helps learn about it actually.

[Talamare]

My games tend to be low cash
Buying 10 healing potion isn't anywhere near viable

However, Healer Kit + Healer Feat and Inspiring Leader Feat are both amazing

[EvilAnagram]

As a DM in a pretty high-casualty game, I honestly think it's often a much better use of my players' time to keep each other up. Every combat I bring someone down to single digits, and they're frequently only standing because someone healed them the turn before. Personally, I think keeping someone up is a better use of resources than bringing them back. At the very least, if you keep them up I won't beat them to death while they're unconcious.

[Chugger]

I'm interested in the new Death Domain and what it does to healing.

If someone goes to zero and the DD cleric can get into touch range, he can upcast and do 19 (or at lvl 4 20) points of heal because each of his d8s is an 8 ( 8+8+4 or 8+8+3). Or if the monster hits really hard, upcast even more so the char comes back very well healed.

I've seen it where a monster ends up playing whack a mole with a zero'd character who gets healing worded for five points. This would stop that cycle in most cases (a DD cleric upcasting).

I'm thinking about what Pex said and yes, healer feat is amazing. If you wanted to, you could do healing word for 6 or 7 pts and then use the healer feat - which is 1d6 + 4 pls person being healed's lvl. So at lvl 6, say, that's 6.5 for the hw plus 3.5 + 4 + 6 for the feat or 20 pts total healing. So you don't need to be a DD cleric if you take this feat (and you don't have to cast hw - if you have something better to do w/ your b.a. or need to save the slot, do so).

[UrielAwakened]

I mean I don't let my players short rest after every combat. Sometimes you need to spend resources on healing because time is a bigger one.

[BoringInfoGuy]

The general idea that it is better to only heal during combat to bring a character back from 0 HP is assuming that the DM is going to always have the attacking creatures ignore the suddenly incredibly vulnerable target to move onto the next threat.

But wouldn’t smart opponents know to take advantage of the bonuses to attacking zero hp targets? (Advantage on all attack rolls and auto crit damage if the target is within 5 feet). That any hit to a 0 HP character counts as one failed death save, and critical hits count as two failed saves?

Zero HP can turn into 3 failed death saves before the opponents turn has ended. If the DM is playing smart, deadly opponents as being smart and deadly.

Ok. Reasonably, the opponents may ignore the zero hp ally once, but after the Cleric brings him back once? Are they still going to leave the ally alone after dropping him again? Or is their next round going to start with the battle cry, “This time, we’ll make certain you STAY down!” In short, are you depending on the DM keeping the kids gloves on during combat?

Also of consideration is initiate order.

Cleric
Opponents
Very low HP ally

If it’s the clerics turn, he should be weighing the benefits of healing this turn vs taking action against the opponents. Assuming the fight is not likely to be over before the opponents next turn, the ally could easily be knocked to zero and lose his actions for the next round. The Cleric then casts Holy Word on his next turn, but the xD4 + Wis bonus is not likely to heal the ally enough to remove the threat of getting knocked back down to zero HP again next opponents turn.

Is the Cleric’s offensive ability worth potentially losing the actions of an ally for one (or more) rounds?

Every group is different, so no one strategy is universally sound or viable. That is why I dislike statements that assume there is only one right way to play.

“Everyone should do this,” is needlessly argumentative and almost always wrong.

“This is what works for me and my group. It may be useful for you as well,” prompts discussion without being argumentative.

[Dalebert]

I think my sincere frustration could come across in the written word like condescension. I vent here when it's not polite to do so at the table. At the table, I am very reluctant to tell someone they're making (IMHO) a poor decision because I don't want to be telling people how to play their character. The thread here where folks are upset about the ooc potential of Healing Spirit just seems bizarre to me and realize I had already seen the very same thread in an AL group on Facebook.

I'm so used to having Facebook discussions with others who play almost exclusively AL games. PoH are cheap and abundant in those games and so my post might sound very presumptuous to lots of folks who don't play AL. Within that realm, I've been playing 2 or more AL games every week for several years now under many different DMs. I have over a dozen characters, several in each tier including two level 20s. AL games are probably very different than many home brews. Still, I'm seeing very similar conversations in AL groups. My perspective is shared by lots of people there.

So I really can't make sweeping statements about non-AL games. What I feel very confident about is that, in AL games which are pretty consistent, somewhere around mid tier 2 going forward, healing potions are a rather trivial cost based on the amount of treasure you will have accrued by that point. You're not going to use 10 potions per tier per game. That's just what I recommend folks have in stock, then replenish as used.

My roommate plays a lot of games with me and shares my frustration. He just had a hilarious character idea. Picture a character who's flaw is that he finds healing potions disgusting (taste, consistency, something) and refuses to drink them except as a last resort. :smalltongue:


Zero HP can turn into 3 failed death saves before the opponents turn has ended. If the DM is playing smart, deadly opponents as being smart and deadly.

You're absolutely right. My post failed to address this threat. You do have to assess that threat. FWIW, people even dropping to zero isn't terribly common in the games I've played. It's much more likely in lower tier games

[Danielqueue1]

if you are ever facing a creature that kills when a target reaches 0 HP. you would be absolutely moronic not to heal in combat. (one of the DMs I play with favors those types of creatures.)

Is it optimal? no. but in my opinion, if the DM is letting you get away with being completely optimal all day you aren't getting challenged. Initiative is not always kind especially if the DM has the bad guys with several initiatives. waiting to cast healing word on an ally until after he falls means little if the enemies get to attack between the healing and the one being healed's turn. it is often much better use of resources to keep a person from going down than to wait for them to go down to heal them.

also consider the alternatives.
Song of rest, healer feat etc. expect you to get your expected daily allotment of short rests. If you are in a dangerous region you likely wont. and if you are in a dungeon, the DM letting you get a long rest is truly a sign of a magnanimous DM who deserves the last slice of pizza.

Hit dice; you only get half of back on a long rest. if you are in a dangerous region, you can chew through those pretty quickly. especially if you have a low con mod. consider a generic 4th level wizard gets fewer hit points worth of hit-dice back per day than one could expect from a single 1st level casting of cure wounds from a life domain cleric.

Potions; a good option for when you are in a bad situation, but in most non-AL campaigns (from my experience) they aren't as unlimited a resource as one might assume.

how many potions does the local alchemist have? it takes several days at least to make a single one. is the local alchemist going to have high enough stock to sustain a party of level 5 adventurers with your recommended 20 each as a bare minimum for someone who "cares all that much about staying alive"? at 4 days a potion that is over a year of work you are expecting them to just have sitting around waiting for you to buy. (let alone the replacements for after the adventure) Unless they have an alchemy Wholesaler in your campaign, I doubt that is sustainable. of course in AL things often transmute from gold to items with little care about where it comes from, but in a coherent campaign, potions aren't going to be an endless supply outside of major metropolises.

Also, if you are using variant encumberance, a wizard carrying around 10 weight units worth of potions is going to severely limit their inventory space.

Spells; limited resource per day. the higher your level the more you have for free. weigh nothing, and you can adapt your playstyle to use them depending on how dangerous the upcoming area is expected to be. casting times don't co above 10 min.

Each has its ups and downs. each has their use. if you don't have an hour to wait, you are stuck with spells and potions. If you don't have Alchemy Costco to buy potions from or you are in a low-gold campaign then your options are even more limited.

[Vaz]

I mean I don't let my players short rest after every combat. Sometimes you need to spend resources on healing because time is a bigger one.

You should always let your players take short rests or Long rests when they want. If there are consequences such as time sensitivity, oh well, thats on them.

[Chugger]

We regularly get the poop knocked out of us in AL, but because it's AL I think the DMs (mostly) resist chomping on zero health chars and speeding up their deaths - because that would be "uncool" and might have consequences - like no one ever signing up at their table again.

With that said, if we're fighting the few things that insta-kill (or close to it) or eat brains and make a rez really hard - heavier healing is called for.

[Estrillian]

Campaigns obviously vary widely with respect to the availability of healing potions. My group has been playing through Princes of the Apocalypse for some time now, and is around level 8/9, and I don't think that they have bought a healing potion since level 1 (when they were in Phandalin, and healing potions were explicitly available to buy). This isn't just a matter of poverty (they are poor) or time spent in the wilderness, I don't think anyone has ever tried to buy one.

We are also playing with slow natural healing rules, and a house rule that costs you a Hit Die when you hit 0 (no hit die means you roll for long term injury instead), so for us out of combat healing spells are valuable. When the party takes a rest there is a trade off to consider between hit die spending, healing kit uses, and spell slots on Prayer of Healing.

In-combat is a different thing. We have a life cleric, and she uses most of her slots for in-combat healing, even when it doesn't make 100% tactical sense. Part of that is roleplaying (the cleric will not stand by and see good men felled), part of it is the player (she wants people to survive), and part of it is avoiding the penalties of being at 0.

There are always situations where it makes more sense to heal, because other uses of those spell slots are themselves sub-optimal. Last night one of my players was trying to get their way past a giant spinning death trap (think a room-sized blender). Half way across it knocked him down, so he was taking hits while crawling. Falling unconscious would have resulted in almost instant death, so the cleric was healing him constantly from the doorway. When the ranger got to the other side of the room (out of sight of the cleric), he used all his own slots on Cure Wounds to get himself back to a level where he might be able to dash back (with the thing they were trying to fetch) without going down again.

[Zalabim]

I think the biggest surprise to me here is that AL allows you to buy as many healing potions as you like. I'm used to modules stating things like "Bob at the general store can sell the PCs 1d4+2 potions of healing, which he restocks whenever Phil the trader comes through town." Then Phil probably only brings 2d6 more and might be selling them to others besides the party if they don't hurry.

[ncguthwulf]

I have been running the same game from level 1 to level 11 now.

As we progress in levels I am finding two things. Firstly, we have less combats per rest. The group has too many options to avoid or control when they fight things. It is also our style of gaming. We dont like to slog through battle after battle to wear down the group.

In this style of one to two fighters per rest, healing is critical. The amount of damage flying around is too great to manage via short rests and hit dice alone. During our kraken (homebrew CR12 deadly) encounter the cleric only healed and it was necessary.

Conversely, from levels 1 to 6 the cleric (light) never healed once, that I can recall. It was WAY more effective to just kill stuff. Especially when fireball started being a thing.

[EvilAnagram]

The idea of infinite healing potions is odd to me, too. I've never written more than four into a single store's stock, nor encountered more than that as a PC.

[Dudewithknives]

It may just be my group that I game with but I can count on one hand the number of times someone used a spell to heal a party member in combat on one hand, and that is across multiple campaigns, since 5e hit the shelves.

With the ridiculous way that items are priced in the DMG, the base magic items that the party will want are either so cheap that they should all get stocked up fairly fast, or so expensive we just write it off as never going to get them anyway, so we just buy potions/wands/whatever of healing instead.

[mer.c]

It may just be my group that I game with but I can count on one hand the number of times someone used a spell to heal a party member in combat on one hand, and that is across multiple campaigns, since 5e hit the shelves.

I’m in the opposite scenario; there’s a druid in my present campaign who spends tons of in-combat actions casting Cure Wounds. I’ve actually explained to the players on a couple occasions that that’s generally not the best way of doing things, but no dice so far.

[Lombra]

My playgroup does use a fair amount of healing spells, we don't get many potions of healing, and we are level 8.

[Shadowknight12]

Some people genuinely enjoy the act of healing allies. There's a reason there's always a very dedicated minority of "Support mains" in every game that allows it.

We're all making suboptimal decisions all the time. If we wanted to reach maximum optimum, we would just go to an optimisation forum and pick whatever is deemed most optimal, instead of creating our own characters. However, we create our own characters, therefore we're being suboptimal right from the start.

So why not continue playing suboptimally if everyone likes it and has fun?

[UrielAwakened]

You should always let your players take short rests or Long rests when they want. If there are consequences such as time sensitivity, oh well, thats on them.

Yeah what I mean is they don't take short rests because they know there are consequences.

They tend to go at least 2-3 encounters without one at a time, so healing between combat is important.


Also, once smart opponents see healing magic used in combat they would absolutely start finishing off downed combatants. This is a world where healing magic is known to exist, and once a smart combatant knows about it they're going to go for killing blows.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, once smart opponents see healing magic used in combat they would absolutely start finishing off downed combatants. This is a world where healing magic is known to exist, and once a smart combatant knows about it they're going to go for killing blows.
That presumes that those smart opponents survive the combat against the party. Dead orcs tell no tales, so to speak.

[UrielAwakened]

Uhh what are you talking about.

If Orcs are fighting you, and you use a Healing Word to give someone like 3 hit points, the next time they knock somebody over, in that combat, they're going to go for the kill. They watched you revive an unconscious ally a few seconds ago.

Nobody has to survive. The consequences occur in that combat, not the next dozen.

If that happens a few times the party will quickly figure out that in-combat healing isn't a waste of resources.

[mephnick]

Intelligent enemies in my games automatically kill downed PCs. That would be common practice in a world with magical healing. It's the dumb ones that have to see it in action before I have them kill downed PCs.

[UrielAwakened]

Intelligent enemies in my games automatically kill downed PCs. That would be common practice in a world with magical healing. It's the dumb ones that have to see it in action before I have them kill downed PCs.

More brutal but still more believable than allowing PCs to yo-yo back and forth all day.

[mer.c]

More brutal but still more believable than allowing PCs to yo-yo back and forth all day.

I’m a fan of having intelligent monsters adapt to party tactics, so I also do this. But we also started imposing exhaustion for successive KOs per long rest for the times when yo-yo-ing does happen. Not immediately debilitating, but stern enough that you can’t keep popping back up like it’s nothing.

[Talamare]

Intelligent enemies in my games automatically kill downed PCs. That would be common practice in a world with magical healing. It's the dumb ones that have to see it in action before I have them kill downed PCs.

Could also mention that a dumb enemy might just keep hitting you when you're down because he is too dumb to switch targets.

[Willie the Duck]

So..... so we aren't going to have an internet fight? :smallfrown:

That's up to you. I have no influence beyond the words I put down. However, I was pointing out that 1) everyone but the OP undoubtedly read it the same way, 2) the OP stunk up the joint all by himself, and didn't need any help. So there's really no need for yelling when we can all look at each other with a knowing smile and all roll our eyes together.


I think my sincere frustration could come across... <etc.>

Congratulations on winning the Louis CK award for non-apology. But at least you did recognize that your analysis is pretty contingent on AL gameplay. Let's be clear, if money is inherently going to be spent on not much but potions at higher levels, and short rests happen when people want them, yes OOC spell-slot-derived (certainly LR-recharged slots) healing should be relatively rare, as it is resource-expensive.

<to no one in particular since a lot of people are discussing it:>
As to the discussion of enemies attacking down opponents, my take is a strong 'It depends.' Attacking someone on the ground while there are still people swinging hardened metal at your head is ridiculously stupid... right up until you live in a world where the healing word spell is a commonplace thing. So it should depend entirely upon how common that is experienced. So I think it depends on how commonly the 'monsters' in the game fight creatures that are PC-like.


Could also mention that a dumb enemy might just keep hitting you when you're down because he is too dumb to switch targets.

I feel that would be 'poorly-programmed-robot' level of dumb. Even rats, wolves, and many insects ought to have the instinct to attack things that are 'still a threat' or else their species wouldn't have lasted long.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I would agree that if an opponent will attack a downed enemy should be a strong “It depends”.

A smart opponent could be wanting to make certain a fallen opponent is really down. Such as the “Doubletap” rule from Zombieland.

A less smart opponent - say, a raging Barbarian - could keep pounding on a downed opponent simply because he does not know - or care - that his opponent is dead. The only thing clear through the red mist is that before him is something to release his fury on. Until either he collapses from exhaustion or another fool dares to draw his attention. Something more along the lines of “Hulk Smash!” instead of poorly programmed robot.

Other opponents could completely ignore a fallen opponent, until every hostile is taken care of.

It should depend on what / who you are fighting. For one thing, if the DM is using the same tactics / behaviors on every fight, then combat will become repetitive and dull.

[mephnick]

Could also mention that a dumb enemy might just keep hitting you when you're down because he is too dumb to switch targets.

For raging type enemies I call all rolls before I roll them. If it has 3 attacks, it attacks you 3 times. Monsters aren't going to carefully check if you're out or not between swings. So yeah that can be an instant kill.

[Dalebert]

If Orcs are fighting you, and you use a Healing Word to give someone like 3 hit points, the next time they knock somebody over, in that combat, they're going to go for the kill. They watched you revive an unconscious ally a few seconds ago.

Yes, agree.


Intelligent enemies in my games automatically kill downed PCs. That would be common practice in a world with magical healing. It's the dumb ones that have to see it in action before I have them kill downed PCs.

Eh. Don't necessarily agree. I guess you have to decide how common magical healing is. Unless they were a deadly challenge to the PCs, it's probably reasonably unlikely they've faced adventurers of the PC's caliber before or else they'd not be around to know that much about magical healing. Obviously some room for judgment there. If they have casters amongst their own people, they might immediately recognize someone as potentially a healing type caster and realize the threat of PCs getting back up.


Congratulations on winning the Louis CK award for non-apology.

What do I have to apologize for? Expressing an opinion on tactics that some people disagree with on a forum where that's a completely valid topic of discussion? Maybe I'm just wrong but even if so, is that something to apologize for? I was not apologizing. I was trying to express myself more clearly and admitting that my perspective is perhaps skewed more toward a certain demographic, i.e. AL players.

I'm not one to judge people for sub-optimal decisions based on role-playing. I have a wild magic sorcerer who's kind of a control freak and he views fireballs as "sloppy peasant magic" and very much hates to use them even when it's the ideal choice of spell, often much to the chagrin of my party members. He doesn't know the spell but has a Staff of Power. I know a cross-eyed kobold sharpshooter who falls over every time he shoots. He's taking the athletic feat just so he can get back up quickly. That character's awesome.

Just be aware I'm commenting based on seeing some very poor (IMHO) tactics in the game. I knew a sorcerer who never used cantrips. She was like 3rd level and she blew a spell slot every time it was her turn even when the fight was a fairly trivial one that didn't call for Magic Missile every time. Then when she ran out of spells she insisted we all stop immediately for a long rest even though it was completely inappropriate to do so. As I said, I tend to be much more tactful at the table and then just come here to vent about such things. In this case I'm basing my comments on behavior I've witnessed where I have full context. I can't judge the tactics of everyone here because I don't have full context. I don't know how hard it is to get potions. I don't know how brutal your DMs are. I don't know how stingy they are with short rests. Actually, AL modules tend to be fairly stingy about such things, PARTICULARLY in tiers 3 and 4, which I think is even more reason to have stockpiles of potions in reserve.

I concede that being attacked at 0 is a real threat and I assess such threats. If an ally has one creature on him that doesn't have multiattack, I'm less concerned than if he's surrounded or if the one creature has three attacks and could end him in one round if he's really low. Or if I feel confident he has enough hp to make it until we end the creature IF we focus on that instead of healing, I will generally opt for doing that. FWIW, We've never lost someone at my table from a bad judgment call in such a context.

*shrug* So is my POV at all clearer?

[BoringInfoGuy]

Eh. Don't necessarily agree. I guess you have to decide how common magical healing is. Unless they were a deadly challenge to the PCs, it's probably reasonably unlikely they've faced adventurers of the PC's caliber before or else they'd not be around to know that much about magical healing. Obviously some room for judgment there. If they have casters amongst their own people, they might immediately recognize someone as potentially a healing type caster and realize the threat of PCs getting back up.

Most sentient races have one or more Deities. All Deities have can be expected to have some clerics or similar class amoung their followers. So it would be hard to justify a sentient race not being at least generally familiar with healing magic. Still, every table is different.



What do I have to apologize for? Expressing an opinion on tactics that some people disagree with on a forum where that's a completely valid topic of discussion? Maybe I'm just wrong but even if so, is that something to apologize for? I was not apologizing. I was trying to express myself more clearly and admitting that my perspective is perhaps skewed more toward a certain demographic, i.e. AL players.

*shrug* So is my POV at all clearer?
Your first post was a set of instructions on what a Healer should and should not do. Nothing was presented as anything other than the one true correct way to play a Healer. This was reinforced at the end by suggestion a new guideline on how many Healing Potions you should have - with your name attached to it.

This is not the presentation of someone giving their opinion.

So, here is my point of view. I’ve been playing D&D for decades. I’ve played clerics in AD&D, AD&D 2nd edition, 3.x and now 5th. (Not to mention other systems, where I often gravitate to a healing role). I’ve played countless games at multiple tables. Through forums like this one, I’ve been able to gain insights into how even more groups play. The primary thing I’ve taken away from all these experiences and insights is that there is no one right way to play D&D. You get to adjust the game to fit your group. (I believe this is the main reason for the continued popularity of D&D.)

So, how do you think a post TELLING me how to I should be playing MY cleric with MY gaming group is going to look to me? Presumptuous is the mildest word I would use.

So, should you apologize for having an opinion on a discussion forum? Of course not. But you - in my opinion - crossed the line into telling everyone how they should play. If you don’t think it is ok to do during a game, why would it be ok here? That is what you may want to consider apologizing for.

[Burnteyes]

As a DM in a pretty high-casualty game, I honestly think it's often a much better use of my players' time to keep each other up. Every combat I bring someone down to single digits, and they're frequently only standing because someone healed them the turn before. Personally, I think keeping someone up is a better use of resources than bringing them back. At the very least, if you keep them up I won't beat them to death while they're unconcious.

Sounds like we run a similar DM style. My encounters are built such that if a player is down the bad guys will typically gain quick advantage and the tide can turn and end in a a TPK.

That said, I have a smaller table, provide strong magic items and bring the heat. My attacks require players to think on their feet to gain tactical advantage.

So, waiting to heal while resting, when I will attack not infrequently could end badly. Also, one simple twist, a down person can not "drink" a healing potion, makes the healing potions properly powered, IMO.

I want players (and they enjoy) encounters that "scare" them as players. The upside is, they often look for RP solutions to avoid what might be losses. This leads to more discovery and I award EXP for roll play efforts that are creative.

These are all veterans, DMs and friends. My style is very different than most I know of.. But the players have all done the regular old, regular old, and don't like it, but get that their characters can and sometimes will die. Sometimes the old run away is the best tact.

Given all these specifics, well timed healing is critical, during combat encounters to stay alive.

[Burnteyes]

I would agree that if an opponent will attack a downed enemy should be a strong “It depends”.

A smart opponent could be wanting to make certain a fallen opponent is really down. Such as the “Doubletap” rule from Zombieland.

A less smart opponent - say, a raging Barbarian - could keep pounding on a downed opponent simply because he does not know - or care - that his opponent is dead. The only thing clear through the red mist is that before him is something to release his fury on. Until either he collapses from exhaustion or another fool dares to draw his attention. Something more along the lines of “Hulk Smash!” instead of poorly programmed robot.

Other opponents could completely ignore a fallen opponent, until every hostile is taken care of.

It should depend on what / who you are fighting. For one thing, if the DM is using the same tactics / behaviors on every fight, then combat will become repetitive and dull.

I fall in agreement here. Beyond what you noted certain creatures are racist agains other type. For example, if you have a drow in your party and you run into some Duergar, they might be inclined to continue to beat the Drow.

[Dalebert]

Your first post was a set of instructions on what a Healer should and should not do. Nothing was presented as anything other than the one true correct way to play a Healer.

I have strong opinions about this. I would even go so far as to call these pet peeves of mine. I get rattled when I see people making choices that could mean the difference between success and a TPK and I admit I came here to vent to people I perceive as generally being above average vs. the typical player and that I sincerely expected a very satisfying chorus of enthusiastic agreement from. Still I open with plenty of language in my post showing that it's my opinion...


In my mind, spells are almost only ever used for healing in combat...

This makes me question the tactics people are using if you find that you have to frequently use your spell slots on healing. It just seems like poor planning and time management...

...but such language isn't required. What are good and bad tactics will always be subjective and thus any discussion thereof will be an opinion and not a statement of fact. Just grow a thicker skin, disagree very strongly if you like, vehemently argue why you believe the way you do just as I did, and then feel free to completely ignore my suggestions. Your insistence that I owe an apology for expressing opinions you disagree with seems like a heavy-handed tactic to shut me up. Even if I do occasionally phrase what is clearly in context a suggestion in the form of what is technically termed a command in grammatical terms, I'm just some unknown person on the Internet in some obscure location. You can just ignore what I told you to do and do what you want.


This was reinforced at the end by suggestion a new guideline on how many Healing Potions you should have - with your name attached to it.

Okay, humor is not allowed. Noted and rejected. At least you conceded it was a suggestion.

It's the Dalebert standard, i.e. my standard, which you are obviously free to reject and replace with your own.


So, should you apologize for having an opinion on a discussion forum? Of course not. But you - in my opinion - crossed the line into telling everyone how they should play. If you don’t think it is ok to do during a game, why would it be ok here? That is what you may want to consider apologizing for.

I will make very tactful suggestions during a game but I limit it because I don't want to be disruptive to the game, bringing it to a screeching halt to endlessly argue tactics. Yes, it's absolutely okay to do here because this is the time and place to discuss such things, very meta and detached from any specific person's choices in an actual game so it doesn't come across as personal.

On a sidenote, lots of responses are countering my suggestions by saying sometimes if you don't heal people, enemies will kill them. Of course! I've already agreed it's a valid exception to my general rule of thumb. This is from my OP.


Is your ally dropping terrifyingly fast from multiple enemies and you think they might keep beating him when he's down until he fails three saves? Yeah, heal him. It's painful and inefficient, but do it if you must. But if you have a way to use your precious actions to stop him taking all those hits, DO THAT!

[Tanarii]

Given your assumptions, yes, I do think Players often over heal.

If potions if Healing are readily available to the entire party + henchmen of about 20-30 or so per adventuring day for Tier 2 ...

If the party gets roughly DMG levels of rewards starting in Tier 2, and has nothing better to do with it than drain it rapidly on potions of healing instead of saving money by spending free spell slots ...

If spell slots aren't needed to keep you above zero, because the DM never has creatures attack a PC make death saving rows ...

If you can take Short Rests at the DMG recommended rate and spend HD ...

Yes, you're over-healing by using spell slots.

------------------

I have some players that are very quick to blow spell slots on healing, even after an encounter, especially if they clerics, even more especially life clerics. They got used to how expensive healing potions were early, and compare that to free, renewable healing, and came to the conclusion of 'why drain money'. They know there are wandering monsters and get a little too punchy about taking Short Rests (even though the odds aren't THAT bad IMC if you hole up properly).

Conversely I have other that think like you. They spend huge chunks of money on what potions of healing are available. And yes, I place limits on max available without special order, even for things on the PHB tables. Those players will often spend tons of money on, and regularly use, Alchemist's Fire, Acid and Holy Water too. Even Basic Poison, which IMO I consider horribly inefficient. A few players' characters are constantly broke and living on the knife edge of poverty all the time, despite being loaded with gear. That's their choice. They decided that the 'nice things' they wanted with all their loot was a bunch of liquid in bottles, most of them carefully wrapped up and packed away so they won't break when they fall down a 10 ft pit.

(I also use variant encumbrance, which makes a huge difference in players willingness to eat up Loot-carrying capacity with 20-30 lbs of bottles. And for that matter to dump Str to 10.)

[Pex]

I will not say a DM who has bad guys kill a downed PC is a Killer DM. There is logic to the reason, and it's a loaded question. However, I can't help but have apprehension about it. Context is everything. I would need to experience the campaign. If the DM is not limiting Revivify even by means of extreme scarcity of 300 gp diamonds in the campaign that's a positive sign. How often or rare a PC is killed this way is also a factor. I will say if a DM tells me to have back up PCs at Session 0 I won't be there in Session 1.

I know I would prefer the bad guy move on to the next conscious PC, and if the downed PC dies it's because of three failed death saves or worst case a TPK that unfortunately happened.

[Dudewithknives]

I will not say a DM who has bad guys kill a downed PC is a Killer DM. There is logic to the reason, and it's a loaded question. However, I can't help but have apprehension about it. Context is everything. I would need to experience the campaign. If the DM is not limiting Revivify even by means of extreme scarcity of 300 gp diamonds in the campaign that's a positive sign. How often or rare a PC is killed this way is also a factor. I will say if a DM tells me to have back up PCs at Session 0 I won't be there in Session 1.

I know I would prefer the bad guy move on to the next conscious PC, and if the downed PC dies it's because of three failed death saves or worst case a TPK that unfortunately happened.

The only time I have ever seen a PC die in combat that was not just a total suicide mission was when they fell to 0HP while still inside an ongoing AOE like Hunger of Hadar, Incendiary Cloud or the like.

I am a little biased though because I play with 2 completely opposite DMs.

1. Is a guy who is just telling the story and you are there for the ride. What you play, how you play it, or what your backstory is make absolutely no difference. as a matter of fact he does not even know what classes we are playing half the time and did not even bother to actually read up on most of the rules in 5e. He only ran 4 sessions that had combat in them at all in a game that lasted 2 years, that we played every other week. The story was book quality, with intrigue and key plot points, but you better just realize that your on character and RP mean nothing.

2. The other one is a total carebear. He loves combat and has it every game, and tries to work in your race and story into the plot of the sessions, however he has to look up a lot of rules and gets quite a few wrong, and he would never kill a PC. Every fight will be kind of hard because he will adjust the enemy HP to make it tougher but he has yet to even knock someone to 0Hp unless completely by accident, and nobody has gotten close to dying.

[stack]

...
I am a little biased though because I play with 2 completely opposite DMs.

1. Is a guy who is just telling the story and you are there for the ride. What you play, how you play it, or what your backstory is make absolutely no difference. as a matter of fact he does not even know what classes we are playing half the time and did not even bother to actually read up on most of the rules in 5e. He only ran 4 sessions that had combat in them at all in a game that lasted 2 years, that we played every other week. The story was book quality, with intrigue and key plot points, but you better just realize that your on character and RP mean nothing.
...

Off topic, but if the DM ignores any player agency, why have players? Just write the novel.

[Dudewithknives]

Off topic, but if the DM ignores any player agency, why have players? Just write the novel.

Honestly, lack of options.

Very small gaming group, of 6 people, and only myself and the 2 I mentioned will ever DM a game.

[Tanarii]

I will not say a DM who has bad guys kill a downed PC is a Killer DM. There is logic to the reason, and it's a loaded question. However, I can't help but have apprehension about it. Context is everything. I would need to experience the campaign. If the DM is not limiting Revivify even by means of extreme scarcity of 300 gp diamonds in the campaign that's a positive sign. How often or rare a PC is killed this way is also a factor. I will say if a DM tells me to have back up PCs at Session 0 I won't be there in Session 1.

I know I would prefer the bad guy move on to the next conscious PC, and if the downed PC dies it's because of three failed death saves or worst case a TPK that unfortunately happened.Most often happens IMC because:
1) it's a multiattack creature and I've rolled all attacks at once.
2) I've rolled for multiple creatures at once
3) It's a totally unintelligent creature, of a type that might keep mauling until it's food stops twitching.
4) The enemy is intelligent and has already seen a creature they thought was out of the fight brought back into he first by PC healing magic at least once.

The first in theory I could back adjust the target if the first takes down a PC. I choose not to.

The second I just try not to do in the first place.

Third I have no problems with, but I actually prefer to have such creatures try to drag off the unconscious body.

The last I don't hesitate to do, and the players know it. It's the price of using healing magic, especially pop-up healing. (Getting the healer targeted is often another price. Same goes for arcane casters who go all blasty.)

Revivify is available as much as players have cleric and can afford, and Raise Dead is available from NPCs as long as you can get the body to them within 10 days. That's almost always the case if there isn't a TPK. And smart Pcs arrange contingency planning for other Pcs (or henchmen) to come looking for them if they don't return in short order, to alleviate the risk of TPks. Even Resurrection is in theory available, although I made it a quest to find the NPC who could cast it the two times it's been needed. Also quite a few characters have been Reincarnated due to significant body destruction.

PCs die often in Tier 1, but almost always due to choosing to fight more than they can handle (either in one fight, or over an adventuring day/session). It's less common in Tier 2, and permadeath is rare. You have to lose the body entirely (either by destruction or no hope of recovery), or lose it for more than ten days and not think it's worth the investment to get it resurrected once you get it back.

[BoringInfoGuy]

I will not say a DM who has bad guys kill a downed PC is a Killer DM. There is logic to the reason, and it's a loaded question. However, I can't help but have apprehension about it. Context is everything. I would need to experience the campaign. If the DM is not limiting Revivify even by means of extreme scarcity of 300 gp diamonds in the campaign that's a positive sign. How often or rare a PC is killed this way is also a factor. I will say if a DM tells me to have back up PCs at Session 0 I won't be there in Session 1.

I know I would prefer the bad guy move on to the next conscious PC, and if the downed PC dies it's because of three failed death saves or worst case a TPK that unfortunately happened.
Conversely, I have tend to have more interest in a game where I know the DM is willing to kill off PCs.

Specifically, I am not referring to the DM showing up to the table with the secret plan to kill off a PC. (Unless the player is in on the plan).

But if the logical outcome to a situation is a PC death or TPK, then I prefer knowing that the DM is not going to jump in and save the day for the party.

For example, a while back my group entered a large, two level room, and disturbed a pack of ghouls. My cleric won intiative and moved ahead of the party down the stairs to use Turn Undead. All but one made the save, so I quickly got swarmed. As in previous encounters, the ravenous ghouls went for the nearest source of food and ignored everything else.

The rest of the group ended up dealing with a undead Orge skeleton that was on the upper level next to them. We had overlooked it due to the ghoul swarm.

Being an elf, my cleric was immune to the paralysis effects. So the rest of the group (human rogue, human sorc, and gnome wiz) dealt with the single big threat above while I kept the ghoul swarm occupied below.

(Defense action, and bonus actions to cast Holy Word and Spiritual Weapon when I got the chance.)

It worked (I love Life Domain) but if the ghouls had a lucky round, they could have dropped my cleric. At that point, the natural and logical action on their part - based on previous encounters - would be to start eating. To suddenly ignore the tasty elf feast before them to go after the humans and gnome would have been fairly blatant DM intervention to save my character.

That would have bothered me more than being eaten. To me, a big part of role playing games is being able to make meaningful choices. Choosing to have my character risk his life to protect the party is not a meaningful choice if the DM is just going to save everyone regardless of what we do.

As you said Pex, context is everything. Part of it is the DM’s behavior. The other part is player preference. Personally, I like knowing that I’m playing with a DM that is willing to have a PC die without running in to save him.