What would it take to make in-combat healing worth while?

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's widely[1] believed that in-combat healing is a waste of time in 5e, except to pop someone up from 0 HP. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing. It leads to the whack-a-mole situation, it devalues a core piece of game-play that many players (judging from my players) enjoy, and it provides a near-trap option. It also feels very weird--players letting themselves go full out, get knocked out, then pop back up again without trying to keep their health up.

Ok, so if healing in combat is mostly useless and that's bad, what would be required to make it worth the spell slots/actions?

Suggestions?

[1] on forums at least :smalltongue:

[JackPhoenix]

Simply add some sort of penalty to dropping to 0 hp. Exhaustion is popular.

[The_Jette]

I'm not entirely sure what groups you're playing with, but my groups are very heavily in the "healing is useful" camp. It helps that we almost got wiped the one time that our healer wasn't available. In combat healing only sucks because the person who is healing could be dealing damage, which would get the group out of the danger that is threatening to take away hit points. I'd much rather have a cleric keeping my meat shield from reaching me, since I'm still a low level wizard.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Simply add some sort of penalty to dropping to 0 hp. Exhaustion is popular.

No. That's exactly what I want to avoid. That doesn't promote healing in combat, it promotes alpha strikes and rocket-tag game-play (death is the best crowd control). I'd rather be able to have longer, more tactical fights. There are also players who enjoy playing the healer role.



I'm not entirely sure what groups you're playing with, but my groups are very heavily in the "healing is useful" camp. It helps that we almost got wiped the one time that our healer wasn't available. In combat healing only sucks because the person who is healing could be dealing damage, which would get the group out of the danger that is threatening to take away hit points. I'd much rather have a cleric keeping my meat shield from reaching me, since I'm still a low level wizard.


I'll admit that my players also heal a lot. I'm trying to work through the forum consensus--see the "are you spending any slots to heal in combat?" thread from a while ago. An idea would be to give a class feature (or feat?) that adds a healing or THP rider onto certain damage done by the player. Or makes healing leave a buff that strengthens the healed person (a single bless die?). Something that makes people want to heal/be healed instead of simply trying to muscle down the enemy as fast as possible.

[Tanarii]

No. That's exactly what I want to avoid. That doesn't promote healing in combat, it promotes alpha strikes and rocket-tag game-play (death is the best crowd control). I'd rather be able to have longer, more tactical fights. There are also players who enjoy playing the healer role.
If the players perceive there's no significant downside to waiting to heal before 0 hps, then the only way to make healing in combat more attractive is to make it a better option than dealing damage. Which has its own downsides. It sets a floor for the ability to do damage, must be able to do damage faster than enemies healing or need not apply.

Of course, I don't see that players perceive no disadvantage to 0 hps, but it's certainly less than when 0 hps meant death. This edition's way of handling it does seem to be widely considered the least dangerous/risky for being at 0 hp.

[Meta]

I'm not a big fan of the exhaustion solution.

How about including more effects like catching fire or being drained that end when the character is healed (could be 1 point or a higher value). The upfront damage is low, but could add up. That asks for better and quicker in combat healing.

[No brains]

I think the major reason that healing is (perceived as) weak in 5e is because the designers wanted to encourage proactive tactics. Making healing too good would cause fights to drag on for longer with less exciting things happening. If healing were super-good, battles might turn into a kind of trench warfare, where healing just gets dumped and dumped until one side makes a mistake or bad roll. A quick and decisive battle can be fun in itself and also allows more fun down the line. It makes sense for a game about a lot of battles.

[Slipperychicken]

No. That's exactly what I want to avoid. That doesn't promote healing in combat, it promotes alpha strikes and rocket-tag game-play (death is the best crowd control).


I dunno about your players, but if I saw a PC getting low under the 'exhaustion at 0hp' rule, they'd be getting a big heal on my next action.

[stoutstien]

I don't use exhaustion but I do use a lingering injury mechanic. I actually think the main reason is action economy that players do not heal more in combat they don't want to feel like they wasted their turn doing something that didn't move the fight forward to a resolution. New Dwarven racial feat is a cool idea that was horribly implemented. It should have been something more along the lines of a reaction to use the Dodge action and use an HD die to heal.

[PeteNutButter]

I dunno about your players, but if I saw a PC getting low under the 'exhaustion at 0hp' rule, they'd be getting a big heal on my next action.

This^

I use the exhaustion rule at my table to great success. Players would much rather get healed to stay above 0 than ever hit 0. I’ve seen a marked improvement in the desire for big healing and the intensity of combat.

[Pex]

Increase the amount of healing the spell provides at its base level. Healing spells heal a paltry amount of damage compared to the damage spells of their level do. Cure Wounds is 1d8 + spellcasting modifier, so 1d8 + 3 until at least 4th level where it goes to a whopping 1d8 + 4. Meanwhile, Inflict Wounds is 3d10 damage, Burning Hands is 3d6, even Cantrips out damage the healing starting at 5th character level. Monster attacks also outdamage the healing.

It's not necessary and even impractical to match up the healing to every amount of damage based on spell level and CR of foes, but it still needs to be higher than what we have now. Have Cure Wounds start at 2d8 + modifier, Healing Word is 2d4 + modifier. Alternative or in addition add character level to the amount of healing.

[Sigreid]

Change some of the healing spells to wards so you aren't healing but preventing damage.

[Finger6842]

It's widely[1] believed that in-combat healing is a waste of time in 5e, except to pop someone up from 0 HP. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing. It leads to the whack-a-mole situation, it devalues a core piece of game-play that many players (judging from my players) enjoy, and it provides a near-trap option. It also feels very weird--players letting themselves go full out, get knocked out, then pop back up again without trying to keep their health up.

Ok, so if healing in combat is mostly useless and that's bad, what would be required to make it worth the spell slots/actions?

Suggestions?

[1] on forums at least :smalltongue:

I agree that extra healing will indeed lead to trench warfare. I also feel expending the extra spells will reduce the /encounters per day/ target most DM's seem to have. Negative solutions like a penalty for falling unconcious are not typically good for players, forcing them to choose between the obvious answer "Heal now" and the correct answer "remove the mob from the encounter NOW before he can do another big hit/crit". Everyone knows that monsters can hit way harder than most heals can compensate for at every level. It's this second philosophy, combined with the truly poor crowd control spells in the game that appear to drive my fellow players to ignore healing in combat.

To me the best option is to give a side affect to the healing spell like increased chance to dodge/save while under the influence of a healing spell. Each healing spell could have a different effect (chance to cure poision, quench flames, cure status, etc) Now the base healing spell does 1d8+x healing AND has some chance (think 1d4 like bardic inspiration) of avoiding another hit that immediately takes away the gain or additionally has some other function. Functionally you can make it work in different ways. For example the healing spell "lights up" the target so bright it's difficult to see them clearly in a "holy" instance or "shrouds the target in shadows" for a necromantic heal. Maybe "surrounds the target in musical notes" for a Bard, obscuring LOS. I've seen something similar to this in use and it has the desired affect, encounters are a bit longer and more tactical in nature.

I have also seen suggestions that give exp bonuses to players that heal but personally think this will unbalance the party. Though to be honest I don't mind at all when other players level before I do since it still makes the party stronger, I do recognize how much harder encounters get to plan when the PC's are different levels. Having taken a stab or two in the DM chair I would personally avoid it, though I doubt senior DM's would be inconvenienced in any meaningful way.

[krugaan]

No. That's exactly what I want to avoid. That doesn't promote healing in combat, it promotes alpha strikes and rocket-tag game-play (death is the best crowd control). I'd rather be able to have longer, more tactical fights. There are also players who enjoy playing the healer role.

For longer more tactical fights you may actually want to look at encounters in MMORPGS, as much as that idea may be derided. The boss fights in WoW are certainly more tailored to high healing / long fights rather than alpha strikes. BBEGs with timers, mooks that should (SHOULD) be taken down in certain orders, phases where you might be forced to run for cover or die, etc.

That being said, as long as whack-a-mole dominates, there's little incentive to heal past barely alive. Exhaustion on 0hp is a decent start.

Or number of rounds of incapacitated equal to the amount of death saves you've failed.

[Kane0]

Some ideas:

Healing also provides a buff (resistance, THP, advantage vs certain conditons, etc)
Link healing with condition removal (eg add a check to also remove sickened condition)
Utilize damage over time effects (poison, bleeding, creeping necrosis, etc) that can be stopped with healing

You need to find some way to make the actions and resources spent on healing be equally as or more efficient than other potential uses (such as preventing damage ocurring in the first place via kiling foes faster or providing BFC).
Basically make the pound of cure match the ounce of prevention.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Increase the amount of healing the spell provides at its base level.
This. Very much this. In a sense, in-combat healing can be boiled down to an action economy thing: you're using your action (and a resource) to cancel out some amount of enemy actions. If your heal restores 10 health, and your enemies are doing 5 damage each, that's not a bad trade-off*-- your turn is essentially worth two of theirs, so your team pulls ahead. On the other hand, if your heal restores 10 health and your enemies are doing 10 damage each... not so much. You're doing a 1:1 tradeoff; no real advantage is being gained. Couple this with the lack of penalty for being at low health, and there's very little incentive to heal.

Basically, the amount you heal for needs to be greater than the incoming damage. You shouldn't have a case where one Cure Wounds spell is about equal to one Attack action.


*Ignoring the resource cost, at least


I think the major reason that healing is (perceived as) weak in 5e is because the designers wanted to encourage proactive tactics. Making healing too good would cause fights to drag on for longer with less exciting things happening. If healing were super-good, battles might turn into a kind of trench warfare, where healing just gets dumped and dumped until one side makes a mistake or bad roll. A quick and decisive battle can be fun in itself and also allows more fun down the line. It makes sense for a game about a lot of battles.
This... won't happen that often, because you're not facing adventuring parties all the time. Most fights won't have a spellcasting enemy at all, and even then, not all casting enemies will have healing spells.

[ImproperJustice]

To answer the original question:

Play a Life Cleric

To better answer the question:
You could add the system strain mechanic from Kevin Crawford’s books ( SWN and other Dust).

It’s like a built in limit on how much your body can be healed or revived until it can’t be restored any more.
It slowly recovers on it’s own (say over long rests), and you could make it to where being revived consumes more strain than healing.
It’s a decent way to balance over-indulgance on certain buffs like Haste as an example.

[coyote_sly]

The simple answer: heal more HP with the spells. If you don't heal more HP than the enemy is going to do in a round you end up one round later in the exact same spot minus a resource. It's a God damn waste, so nobody does it.

It would be FAR better to have access to healing action far less frequently in combat, but have them actually restore a significant portion of HP.

[Ritorix]

It's just the nature of D&D that combatants are equally useful at 1HP as they are at 100HP. If the game had a wound system or similar mechanic, there would be an incentive to stay topped off in combat. Some games add penalty dice as your HPs decrease or you pass certain health thresholds; you literally get worse at fighting as you get injured. But that that isn't the case here in a more heroic-themed game so action denial remains top dog and HP healing is only relevant to keep someone in the fight.

There's a lot of healing variants in other games that D&D could (and has, over the years) borrow. 4e had abilities like Sacred Flames and Healing Strike, which did damage and also granted an ally temp HP or a full heal on a hit, so you could heal via combat. Heal-over-times are another good option, I remember some in 3e. I love playing healers in MMOs, but a D&D healer focuses on the action economy - damage prevention via crowd control, healing to get someone up and no farther. It's a shame crowd control spells like hold person, banishment, etc are saving-throw based. Imagine if they only worked on low-HP opponents, so there was an incentive to keep allies topped off and immune to the nasty spells.

If you wanted to change the game around a lot, I would do something like this to all monsters and PCs:
Over half HP? Advantage on all saves. You resist things easier when fresh. Rocket-tag of round 1 fireballs and banishment has less effect.
Under half HP? Disadvantage on all rolls including saves, checks and attacks. Resistances are breaking down. You'll die faster now. Run away or get a heal.

[Talamare]

Add a penalty to death
"It encourages alpha strikes"
If your party can alpha strike kill the entire encounter without taking significant damage, then the encounter wasn't a challenge to begin with

Add a penalty to low health
Use the Bloodied System from 4e. Once you're at half health you lose some of your power

From that this is what I suggest

Once per battle when you're reduced to half health, you suffer 1 level of exhaustion.

If your character is reduced to 0, he must immediately make a death saving throw. This death saving throw is repeated at the start of each of his turns. A character may fail 3 death saving throws before he dies. Each failed attempt is recorded, and 1 is removed after each long rest.

If your character is ever revived from death, one of his attributes scores is permanently reduced by 1.

[Slipperychicken]

It's just the nature of D&D that combatants are equally useful at 1HP as they are at 100HP. If the game had a wound system or similar mechanic, there would be an incentive to stay topped off in combat. Some games add penalty dice as your HPs decrease or you pass certain health thresholds; you literally get worse at fighting as you get injured. But that that isn't the case here in a more heroic-themed game so action denial remains top dog and HP healing is only relevant to keep someone in the fight.


I agree with this. I think people just have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of death-spiral mechanics.



If you wanted to change the game around a lot, I would do something like this to all monsters and PCs:
Over half HP? Advantage on all saves. You resist things easier when fresh. Rocket-tag of round 1 fireballs and banishment has less effect.
Under half HP? Disadvantage on all rolls including saves, checks and attacks. Resistances are breaking down. You'll die faster now. Run away or get a heal.

I'd consider this without the "over half" modifiers. Being healthy just means you do things normally -no modifier. Being injured means you do things worse. Maybe instead of flat disadvantage on everything, you could have a kind of 'temporary exhaustion level' to indicate great injury.

[Pex]

While spellcasters do get damaged giving penalties for less than optimum health hurts warriors more because they're getting pounded more. It's why they have the hit points and AC. In the general case you also spiral the party down to a quicker death. The more hurt they get the more penalties they get. The more penalties they get the less they can hurt the bad guys. The less they can hurt the bad guys the more hurt they get. Time and resources spent on healing only return to the status quo but do nothing to give the party advantage and doesn't address they're still healing less than they're taking damage. It doesn't pay to heal the fighter so he doesn't have penalties only for the fighter to get damaged again to go back into penalties. Combat becomes a series of frustrations.

[Hyde]

Unfortunately, the game is math.
It will always either be more efficient to murder the other team as fast as possible, or to spend all of your resources on healing (and then murder).

If healing is less efficient than damage, then in-combat healing in generally a bad plan.
If healing is more efficient than damage, you all but require pigeon-holing someone into a healer role. (If that's what someone wants to do, then great, but "stuck being the healer" is a thing, and something this edition actively avoids).
If healing is as efficient as damage, you may as well have the casters discuss how many spell slots to cross of each side, and then start the fight. (Probably not really, but I wanted to make the joke.)

I really would want to dig into this by asking exactly what we're trying to accomplish. It sounds like we're wanting to specifically prevent the whack-a-mole aspect, which isn't exactly the same as "promoting spending ones actions to heal". Which is to say, incentivizing healing isn't the same as disincentivizing dying.

Of the solutions presented, buffing heal spells falls into the former- make heals more attractive, therefore making players more willing to use them. Conversely, the exhaustion rule falls under the latter- you better not die, or else!

We need a solution that addresses the bad math that healing represents (why do it ever when murder is better?) and that does so in a way that's actually interesting (because healing might not be boring for everyone, but oh boy). Literally the only time I was excited about healing was in 4th edition, when my party's cleric turned an ongoing 90 bleed damage into an ongoing 90 heal.

Without changing the rules, I would encourage encounters with waves- a short break where they don't have time to take a short rest- maybe they could retreat, but they're not going to do well next round if they don't try to patch up even a little (I'll admit that this is both complex and difficult).

Monsters with abilities that amplify against weakened targets- if the target of the attack is less than half, he gets a free swing, for example, to incentivize more tactical healing.

Mobile monsters where spending half movement to get up from prone every round is unfeasible.

Monsters that start recognizing that the PCs are just going to get popped back up, and start making an effort to execute downed PCs after the first couple of times it happens. That'll wake them up real fast.

In short- if you want your players to behave with more tactical complexity than rocket-tag beatdown, you'll have to set it up so that success requires it of them.

Wound systems would help- especially if natural healing didn't fix the wounds. You have to spend magical healing to heal that broken leg, buddy, or wait for it to heal.

I'm sorry that this is a bit rambling. It's an interesting topic, and not one easily addressed, I think.

[Lombra]

We're playing without a cleric. It's hard.

[Wilko]

Throw in a few low level minions, have them go after PC's who drop to 0hp, remember any melee hit is a crit and costs two death saving throws. Going unconscious is a slap on the wrist - dying sucks...

[Jethro]

Increase the amount of healing the spell provides at its base level. Healing spells heal a paltry amount of damage compared to the damage spells of their level do. Cure Wounds is 1d8 + spellcasting modifier, so 1d8 + 3 until at least 4th level where it goes to a whopping 1d8 + 4. Meanwhile, Inflict Wounds is 3d10 damage, Burning Hands is 3d6, even Cantrips out damage the healing starting at 5th character level. Monster attacks also outdamage the healing.

It's not necessary and even impractical to match up the healing to every amount of damage based on spell level and CR of foes, but it still needs to be higher than what we have now. Have Cure Wounds start at 2d8 + modifier, Healing Word is 2d4 + modifier. Alternative or in addition add character level to the amount of healing.

I'm pretty sure it's this simple. Sure cure wounds is pretty good at level one, but it sucks from then on. Make it at range instead of touch, make it 2d8+mod and up cast at 1d8 per level. Use that as the base for ALL the healing spells. Mass Cure wounds for 3d8+mod, Mass Healing Word for 3d4+mod. I mean thats a 5th and 3rd level spell, respectively. It should be on par with Banishment and Spirit Guardians, no? Also, let players drink a health potion as a bonus action.

[Battlebooze]

Change some of the healing spells to wards so you aren't healing but preventing damage.

Pretty close to what I was thinking.

Change Cure wounds to something like: Heals 1d8 + wisdom modifier and gives 5 temporary hit points. These both scale with up casting. These temporary hit points fade in one hour.

So a 5th level slot will heal 5d8+wis and grant 25 temporary hit points for an hour.

[Talamare]

Change some of the healing spells to wards so you aren't healing but preventing damage.

I would leave the current healing spells alone, and introduce wards.

Wards would provide higher amounts of prevention, while perhaps as well provide some form of bonus

A level 1 Ward could be, Prevent the next 3d8+Mod damage, if this damage came from an attack the attacker suffers d6 damage

[Cespenar]

Wards would be awesome. Rule that only one ward can be active on one creature, and introduce wards against different situations. Pretty tactical.

Example of different wards than hit point wards:

Ward of Body, lv 3: Prevent the next Stun, Blind or Paralysis condition that comes from an enemy spell or attack. Target receives the effect of Haste for 1 round.

Ward of Mind, lv 5: Prevent the next Charmed or Frightened condition that comes from an enemy spell or attack. Target receives instead advantage on all of its rolls for 1 round.

[Easy_Lee]

Make the heals better and more interesting. Heals should be equal to nukes in damage. There should be more AoE and persistent healing effects, such as the popular Aura of Vitality.

It's funny to me that Xanathar's has done exactly this, and some people are complaining that those heals are too powerful. They aren't too powerful. Most of the existing heals are just too weak.

[Dankus Memakus]

Give extra XP for healing. Not much but a little extra. That always motivates my players.

[Spacehamster]

If helas would have been designer to either: give the target a small buff on his next action or the healer gain a small buff on his next move. Then prob healing would feel more worthwhile.

[Unoriginal]

Healing mid-combat is less efficient that attacking because when you fight 4 monsters while your group has 1 healer, you can get hit 4 times and only get healed once.


There is nothing bad about healing spells being used to get downed combatants back on their feet. It makes self-healing features like Second Wind more worthwhile.

[UrielAwakened]

Add this caveat to all healing spells:


"Whenever you use an action to cast a spell of 1st-level of higher that restores hit points, the target can also spend a hit die for each level of the spell you cast."

4e healing ala "healing surges", with the burden on the recipient moreso than the caster. Doesn't work with Healing Word and I don't think it works with the new op Healing Spirit spell either. Add the duration needs to be instant if you want.

This adds more healing to all healing spells, which is desperately needed, without throwing off the resource pool of a standard D&D party.

[Dudewithknives]

Healing in combat just needs to heal more, like a lot more.

Also another problem is that monsters can just out damage your healing, easily.

If you can throw a heal that averages 12 hp returned but on each other the enemies turns they are going to be doing 30 you did not even save a round worth for whoever you healed. Conversely, if you wait until someone is at 0, then you are gaurenteed, to save them a round worth.

There are 3 ways to fix this.

1. Lower the damage enemies do in a round.

2. Greatly increase the base healing amount of spells.

3. Make it much easier for people to die. Go back to the whole, you only have to -10 hp or you die.

[mephnick]

I don't think making healing in combat an important tactic is a valuable goal. Combat should be quick and not require healers. I agree with the Devs on that.

Out of combat healing is about where it should be. Except Healing Spirit, of course, which removes the resource attrition the system is designed around from the system completely. But hey, we have a whole thread of wrongheadedness on that already.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Make the heals better and more interesting. Heals should be equal to nukes in damage. There should be more AoE and persistent healing effects, such as the popular Aura of Vitality.

It's funny to me that Xanathar's has done exactly this, and some people are complaining that those heals are too powerful. They aren't too powerful. Most of the existing heals are just too weak.
Maybe I'm just too used to 3.X, but a lot of the "overpowered" complaints I hear about 5e seem monumentally petty. That said, Healing Spirit is... actually, I don't think I would cast it during combat, as it doesn't heal much at once, it eats your Concentration, and it's easy for enemies to take advantage of. It's only as a downtime heal that it gets silly (10d6 for a 2nd level spell is a lot; 10d6 for the entire party if you congo line is... I won't say broken, exactly, but it significantly changes the attrition part of the game).

That said, it reminds me that there are really three kinds of healing, which I shall name as burst, incidental, and recovery.

Burst Healing is when you spend your full action to drop a lot of healing. Your Cure Wounds, your Life Cleric Channel Divinity, that sort of thing.
Incidental Healing is when you restore a smaller amount of hit points while also doing something else. The 4e style "hit a guy, heal a guy" abilities are a good example of this, and I'd argue that bonus-action abilities like Healing word and the Dream Druid ability also count.
Recovery Healing is when you take a lot of time to restore a lot of health. You mostly see it in the form of healing-over-time things like Healing Spirit, though long casting times like Prayer of Healing also qualify. Heck, you could even count short rest abilities like spending hit dice and the Bard's Song of Rest.


5e has solid incidental healing options. Not saying that "hit a guy, heal a guy" wouldn't be fun to see, but it's not really lacking either. 5e has plenty of recovery healing, some of which (coughHealing Spiritcough) verges on game-changing-ly good. What 5e doesn't really have is good burst healing. As has been noted, Cure Wounds simply doesn't keep up with the amount of damage enemies can pump out.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think making healing in combat an important tactic is a valuable goal. Combat should be quick and not require healers. I agree with the Devs on that.

Out of combat healing is about where it should be. Except Healing Spirit, of course, which removes the resource attrition the system is designed around from the system completely. But hey, we have a whole thread of wrongheadedness on that already.

I guess I disagree here, kind of. I'd like healing to be a combat multiplier, not just a "recover quicker" option. For me, too short combats (which is what happens with rocket-tag/nova incentives) means that those cool monster abilities? I'll never see them. Complex tactics? Nope. It's just a race to see who can dead the other side faster. My ideal would be short rounds (no minionmancy!) but average combat lasts about 5 rounds. 3 rounds for minor combats, 7-8 for major combats. It's also why I don't like SoD effects.

I'm more for spreading the love as to healing--give a bunch of classes at least some ability to heal. You shouldn't need a dedicated healer who does nothing but heal (the MMO model), but having someone who can heal should be a major benefit, and not just from a condition-removal standpoint. I'm coming around to the idea that

*Large HP recovery is best saved for out-of-combat (so single-action direct heals shouldn't be too much buffed).
*There should be more ward (damage prevention) effects
*Healing/warding spells should have trade-offs--healing word is fast, so it doesn't do anything special. Cure wounds should heal a bit + give some lingering buff. Others can improve damage output if they heal (reflect damage, etc).

I'm doing some numerical work to look at scaling vs average PC health pools, but that's not done yet.

[GlenSmash!]

I think having a Zealot or two would make in combat healing worth while. But they would have to be level 14+ so maybe not a very viable plan.

[UrielAwakened]

I guess I disagree here, kind of. I'd like healing to be a combat multiplier, not just a "recover quicker" option. For me, too short combats (which is what happens with rocket-tag/nova incentives) means that those cool monster abilities? I'll never see them. Complex tactics? Nope. It's just a race to see who can dead the other side faster. My ideal would be short rounds (no minionmancy!) but average combat lasts about 5 rounds. 3 rounds for minor combats, 7-8 for major combats. It's also why I don't like SoD effects.

I'm more for spreading the love as to healing--give a bunch of classes at least some ability to heal. You shouldn't need a dedicated healer who does nothing but heal (the MMO model), but having someone who can heal should be a major benefit, and not just from a condition-removal standpoint. I'm coming around to the idea that

*Large HP recovery is best saved for out-of-combat (so single-action direct heals shouldn't be too much buffed).
*There should be more ward (damage prevention) effects
*Healing/warding spells should have trade-offs--healing word is fast, so it doesn't do anything special. Cure wounds should heal a bit + give some lingering buff. Others can improve damage output if they heal (reflect damage, etc).

I'm doing some numerical work to look at scaling vs average PC health pools, but that's not done yet.

I'll say it again, just let PCs spend hit dice based on the level of the healing spell.

You don't need some weird formula.

[mephnick]

I'll say it again, just let PCs spend hit dice based on the level of the healing spell.

You don't need some weird formula.

Buffs healing while draining resources. I like it.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll say it again, just let PCs spend hit dice based on the level of the healing spell.

You don't need some weird formula.

I agree that that works (spending hit dice). It would also make hit dice more integrated into things, where they feel more disconnected (to me) currently.

I was mainly calculating average HP at each level and seeing how badly cure wounds scales. Turns out past 1st level, it drops off real badly even if cast out of the biggest slot you've got.

[Easy_Lee]

I'll say it again, just let PCs spend hit dice based on the level of the healing spell.

You don't need some weird formula.

Spending hit dice in addition to the heal's normal effects would be fine, but it also makes healing spirit even better. The best healing options are the ones that, like healing spirit and aura of vitality, can have multiple targets over a period of time. If all I have to do is run through healing spirit to regain 2d12+ HP on a barbarian, that becomes too good. Combine this with a wizard to cast Magic Hut and you not only have healing taken care of, but the DM can't do anything about it without breaking the rules.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. The DM can design encounters that are dangerous on their own rather than trying to kill the players through attrition. Or, if he wishes to play an attrition game, ensure the PCs can't sit still for even thirty consecutive seconds during the gauntlet. This can be done with a timer, approaching wall of destruction, or a variety of other methods.

So again, the DM can play around anything the players can do. I don't see an issue.

[UrielAwakened]

Spending hit dice in addition to the heal's normal effects would be fine, but it also makes healing spirit even better. The best healing options are the ones that, like healing spirit and aura of vitality, can have multiple targets over a period of time. If all I have to do is run through healing spirit to regain 2d12+ HP on a barbarian, that becomes too good. Combine this with a wizard to cast Magic Hut and you not only have healing taken care of, but the DM can't do anything about it without breaking the rules.

That's not necessarily a bad thing. The DM can design encounters that are dangerous on their own rather than trying to kill the players through attrition. Or, if he wishes to play an attrition game, ensure the PCs can't sit still for even thirty consecutive seconds during the gauntlet. This can be done with a timer, approaching wall of destruction, or a variety of other methods.

So again, the DM can play around anything the players can do. I don't see an issue.

Easy solution there:

Restrict it only to instantaneous spells that require an action to cast.

This limits Healing Spirit and Healing Word, and makes Cure Wounds/Mass Wounds/Heal better. Healing Word becomes the "emergency, get this player up now" healing spell, Healing Spirit the, "we have a ton of free time" healing spell.

One problem I see is that Mass Cure Wounds becomes a lot better. Maybe instead the rule should be:


When you cast an instantaneous healing spell using an action, the target can also spend a hit die. For each level the spell is upcast, the target can spend one additional hit die.

[Talamare]

Easy solution there:

Restrict it only to instantaneous spells that require an action to cast.

This limits Healing Spirit and Healing Word, and makes Cure Wounds/Mass Wounds/Heal better. Healing Word becomes the "emergency, get this player up now" healing spell, Healing Spirit the, "we have a ton of free time" healing spell.

Easiest solution of all would be to add the feature to certain spells.
Then you can pick and choose who gets it

[UrielAwakened]

Easiest solution of all would be to add the feature to certain spells.
Then you can pick and choose who gets it

Yeah that's true. I prefer general rules personally but to each their own.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah that's true. I prefer general rules personally but to each their own.


Easiest solution of all would be to add the feature to certain spells.
Then you can pick and choose who gets it

I'm in favor of the spell-by-spell approach, because that allows you to do different things with different spells. One allows spending hit dice. Another reflects the next attack. A third allows a boosted save against an ongoing condition. Stuff like that.

[Samayu]

When you're at 5HP, and the monster is dealing 25 damage twice per round, it makes more mathematical sense to heal after you drop to zero, than when you're still at 30. Especially when you're only healing 8 at a time.

House rule that hit point totals drop below zero, so that you have to be healed up from a negative number. Then the only decision point is who is more likely to be hit next. The downside is that since people are less likely to regain consciousness after a heal at negative hit points, healing only stabilizes the dying.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When you're at 5HP, and the monster is dealing 25 damage twice per round, it makes more mathematical sense to heal after you drop to zero, than when you're still at 30. Especially when you're only healing 8 at a time.

House rule that hit point totals drop below zero, so that you have to be healed up from a negative number. Then the only decision point is who is more likely to be hit next. The downside is that since people are less likely to regain consciousness after a heal at negative hit points, healing only stabilizes the dying.

My issue with that house rule is that in any serious combat (where people dropping to negative HP is likely), players are likely to spend quite a bit of table time doing nothing. Unconscious but stable is the most boring state you can be in. Yes, even worse than being stuck in a force cage :smallwink:. You can't do anything--might as well go get snacks or tune out on a phone. That's corrosive to table fun.

I feel the same way about hard crowd control as applied to the players. Monsters don't get bored when they're polymorphed/banished/stunned/etc. The DM has many more to play (or they can go to narrative time if that was the last one). The player doesn't. He's stuck as a passive observer.

I'm convinced that this is a major reason 5e went away from lots of save-or-suck/die effects and implemented the current death-saves/no negative HP model. It keeps players in the game as much as possible. And that's a good thing in my opinion.

[Sigreid]

I guess I disagree here, kind of. I'd like healing to be a combat multiplier, not just a "recover quicker" option. For me, too short combats (which is what happens with rocket-tag/nova incentives) means that those cool monster abilities? I'll never see them. Complex tactics? Nope. It's just a race to see who can dead the other side faster. My ideal would be short rounds (no minionmancy!) but average combat lasts about 5 rounds. 3 rounds for minor combats, 7-8 for major combats. It's also why I don't like SoD effects.

I'm more for spreading the love as to healing--give a bunch of classes at least some ability to heal. You shouldn't need a dedicated healer who does nothing but heal (the MMO model), but having someone who can heal should be a major benefit, and not just from a condition-removal standpoint. I'm coming around to the idea that

*Large HP recovery is best saved for out-of-combat (so single-action direct heals shouldn't be too much buffed).
*There should be more ward (damage prevention) effects
*Healing/warding spells should have trade-offs--healing word is fast, so it doesn't do anything special. Cure wounds should heal a bit + give some lingering buff. Others can improve damage output if they heal (reflect damage, etc).

I'm doing some numerical work to look at scaling vs average PC health pools, but that's not done yet.

Just thought I'd insert that however successful they are at it any intelligent party is going to at least attempt to rocket tag/alpha strike their opponents to reduce the risk and incoming damage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just thought I'd insert that however successful they are at it any intelligent party is going to at least attempt to rocket tag/alpha strike their opponents to reduce the risk and incoming damage.

But a system that makes that a dominating strategy (like 3.5e did) is, in my opinion, boring. It effectively removes any builds, abilities, or tactics that don't lend themselves to alpha strikes from the game--either you can alpha strike your opponent or they alpha strike you.

Compare this to Mechwarrior (where I learned the term alpha strike). Pulling an alpha strike (firing all weapons on target) was a tactic of desperation because the heat build-up would likely shut you down at least temporarily. It was a high risk/high reward tactic, one of many possibilities.

Alpha strikes should have trade-offs other than having to rest quicker. They should require judgement--"can we successfully blow this guy up?" instead of being the go-to. There should be the possibility of all sorts of different viable tactics, from the harrier/death-by-a-thousand-cuts type to the brute-force smack-them-harder types to the ranged nuke to the patient fencer who waits for the perfect opening to the outlast type ("break yourselves on my wall while my friends keep me up!"). Those all get lost under "nova it harder" tactics.

[Tanarii]

Yah. 5e resources management works makes consideration of the alpha strike / nova relevant over the course of an adventure. Not within a specific battle. If you're going to alpha/nova a combat in 5e, beat to do it early on.

Effective combat healing could change that, but you'd have to raise the ability to heal with a resource to be equivalent of using it to take an action instead.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yah. 5e resources management works makes consideration of the alpha strike / nova relevant over the course of an adventure. Not within a specific battle. If you're going to alpha/nova a combat in 5e, beat to do it early on.

Effective combat healing could change that, but you'd have to raise the ability to heal with a resource to be equivalent of using it to take an action instead.

I understand why it's like that, but it's something I'm not satisfied with, at least in theory. In practice, my players don't alpha strike things, nor are they particularly concerned with optimization. They also heal quite a bit, so it's actually rare that people go to 0 HP. Part of this whole thing is that I'm not the most tactically-savvy DM (too many things to remember), I'm too soft (meta-gaming for the players by doing things like hitting the rogue and monk with the DEX save effects and the GOO lock with the psychic damage and splitting attacks against multiple targets instead of nuking a single target) and that my dice love the players, not the monsters. :smallannoyed:

[KorvinStarmast]

This looks to be a solution looking for a problem. It works fine as is. I think that the whole issue being raised is a symptom of "overthinking" what healing is and how it works in this particular edition. I can't read the minds of devs, but I think this post came close.

I think the major reason that healing is (perceived as) weak in 5e is because the designers wanted to encourage proactive tactics. Making healing too good would cause fights to drag on for longer with less exciting things happening. If healing were super-good, battles might turn into a kind of trench warfare, where healing just gets dumped and dumped until one side makes a mistake or bad roll. A quick and decisive battle can be fun in itself and also allows more fun down the line. It makes sense for a game about a lot of battles.

[lperkins2]

As has been mentioned a couple times, Life clerics are the only competent combat healers. 1d8+3 vs 1d8+6 for first level slots, plus their fancy channel divinity. The extra 3+ points healed from Disciple of Life means they can actually heal faster than a cantrip can harm, at least until they run out of spell slots.

If you want combat healing in general, boost other healing classes to match the life cleric, then give the life cleric something special. Of course, balancing that is another matter entirely. Our life cleric can pretty well counter 1 turn worth of damage each turn, so the party doesn't really take much for HP damage until she runs out of spell slots. Giving that much healing power to bards would make a solid choice for a character into one of the best.

[Strangways]

It's widely[1] believed that in-combat healing is a waste of time in 5e, except to pop someone up from 0 HP. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing. It leads to the whack-a-mole situation, it devalues a core piece of game-play that many players (judging from my players) enjoy, and it provides a near-trap option. It also feels very weird--players letting themselves go full out, get knocked out, then pop back up again without trying to keep their health up.

Ok, so if healing in combat is mostly useless and that's bad, what would be required to make it worth the spell slots/actions?

[1] on forums at least :smalltongue:

Healing is widely believed to be useless in combat, other than to keep people from dying, because it is almost useless in combat. And that's realistic. Doctors don't run around trying to heal people in mid-firefight. For the most part, the healing waits until the fight is over.

The basic mechanical problem with in-combat healing in 5e is that damage output vastly outpaces healing output. A fairly low-level fighter type can easily put out 20 or 30 points of damage per turn while expending very few resources, but pumping out that kind of healing every turn would require a huge resource expenditure. Equalizing those two things would trade one set of problems for another. You'd have to let NPCs have that kind of healing capacity too, and then battles would be long, drawn-out affairs, like WoW raids, where the balance between damage output and healing can be maintained over extended periods. In 5e terms, that could easily result in battles going 30 or 40 rounds. More subtly, but probably even worse in the long run, is the question of who would have that kind of healing output? Presumably Clerics and Druids would get it, and probably no one else. But then, given encounters balanced for that kind of healing output, every party would be incomplete without a cleric or druid, thus forcing at least one person in every party to play a class they may not wish to play.

[Tanarii]

A healers healing compared to a fighters output isn't relevant. It's either vs a monsters (which is often considerably less than a damage oriented melee PC), or vs the healer could do using the slot to do damage as a percentage of total damage needed to end the fight faster and the incoming damage that would counter.

I mean, by both of those scales it's a tad low. But nowhere near as low as comparing to a Barbarian or Fighter damage output.

And don't forget you have to compare healing value as 100% success rate, whereas damage commonly has either an attack roll or saving throw. 8 pts of healing from a Cure Light Wounds on an A.C. 18 lvl 1 S&B fighter negates about 4 attacks from a +4 to hit for 6 damage monster. If using it for a offensive spell, it needs to negate that many attacks by ending the fight early to be more effective.

[Eradis]

I dunno about your players, but if I saw a PC getting low under the 'exhaustion at 0hp' rule, they'd be getting a big heal on my next action.

That or the critical hits/falling to 0hp wounds rule. Makes you want to avoid getting dropped to 0 hp. No one wants to lose an eye.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A healers healing compared to a fighters output isn't relevant. It's either vs a monsters (which is often considerably less than a damage oriented melee PC), or vs the healer could do using the slot to do damage as a percentage of total damage needed to end the fight faster and the incoming damage that would counter.

I mean, by both of those scales it's a tad low. But nowhere near as low as comparing to a Barbarian or Fighter damage output.

And don't forget you have to compare healing value as 100% success rate, whereas damage commonly has either an attack roll or saving throw. 8 pts of healing from a Cure Light Wounds on an A.C. 18 lvl 1 S&B fighter negates about 4 attacks from a +4 to hit for 6 damage monster. If using it for a offensive spell, it needs to negate that many attacks by ending the fight early to be more effective.

Agreed. Oh, and you've got old editions coming out again--it's Cure Wounds, not Cure *Light* Wounds :smallbiggrin:. PCs are all glass cannons by design. They're offensive powerhouses (even the non-optimized ones) that have relatively weak defenses. Monsters are the reverse, also by design. This is because

a) big numbers are fun
b) except when they happen to you
c) there are always more monsters. Not so easy to replace a PC.

[Kane0]

Jumping off from Grod's post, I wonder what a specific burst heal would look like?

Perhaps a spell that heals a creature touched for all damage they have taken since your/their last turn up to X amount which scales by slot? Then a higher level version that is usable at range.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Jumping off from Grod's post, I wonder what a specific burst heal would look like?

Perhaps a spell that heals a creature touched for all damage they have taken since your/their last turn up to X amount which scales by slot? Then a higher level version that is usable at range.

Or a heal that is latent for a period and when someone within range takes damage it heals them for the damage taken or X (scaling by slot)? Scaling to bounce to another player (or players) at higher level (similar to WoW's Prayer of Mending or a Chain Heal)?

[Saeviomage]

If all I have to do is run through healing spirit to regain 2d12+ HP on a barbarian, that becomes too good. Combine this with a wizard to cast Magic Hut and you not only have healing taken care of, but the DM can't do anything about it without breaking the rules.
Magic hut isn't all powerful. For that matter, any time you are resting, no matter how well defended, your opponents should be advancing their plans. Long rests are not a problem.

I really like the 'heals let you spend hit dice' mechanic, because it means that having a healer is a good thing (to enable those hit dice), but relieves the healer of having to blow more powerful spells to get more healing.

Maybe only allow such an expenditure once per spell, to avoid having a big change in balance between one-off and multiple heal spells. I would probably also extend it to spells that grant temporary hitpoints, allowing a bigger buffer to be created, or they will become obsolete.

[Psikerlord]

It's widely[1] believed that in-combat healing is a waste of time in 5e, except to pop someone up from 0 HP. This, in my opinion, is a bad thing. It leads to the whack-a-mole situation, it devalues a core piece of game-play that many players (judging from my players) enjoy, and it provides a near-trap option. It also feels very weird--players letting themselves go full out, get knocked out, then pop back up again without trying to keep their health up.

Ok, so if healing in combat is mostly useless and that's bad, what would be required to make it worth the spell slots/actions?

Suggestions?

[1] on forums at least :smalltongue:

I fixed it with (i) at zero hp, con check or roll on the injuries & setbacks table, and (ii) healing spells take 1d3 minutes to work once reduced to zero hp (but are instant if used whilst above zero hp).

edit: this basically means if you're reduced to zero hp, you're out of the current fight, and might pick up a lingering injury/setback. So the PCs will do everything they can to stay above zero. Also has a nice side effect of making 5e more dangerous, which it sorely needs.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I fixed it with (i) at zero hp, con check or roll on the injuries & setbacks table, and (ii) healing spells take 1d3 minutes to work once reduced to zero hp (but are instant if used whilst above zero hp).

edit: this basically means if you're reduced to zero hp, you're out of the current fight, and might pick up a lingering injury/setback. So the PCs will do everything they can to stay above zero. Also has a nice side effect of making 5e more dangerous, which it sorely needs.

I dislike this for one major reason--it's boring for the players. It means that (especially at low levels where it's easy to get knocked down) you're not playing for the next X minutes of real life. Same reason I don't like hard CC on players. Yes, that's asymmetric, but the game is for the players, not the monsters. Enemies are bit players, the PCs are the stars.

I've been at tables where if you were knocked out at round 1 (due to losing initiative and getting focus-fired or a bad save, or whatever), you'd be out for a good chunk of the session. That's a total waste of real people time and leads (in my experience) to the same disconnect from play as that one guy who takes forever to do his turn (the minionmancer who doesn't have all his skeletal ducks in a row, for example).

[Pex]

I don't like healing lets the recipient spend hit dice. That's one among many things that turned me off of 4E. What happens when you're out of hit dice to spend? No healing for you! Aside which, it doesn't help you spend the hit dice, get damaged for more hurt, then when the combat is over you're still hurt bad and now have no hit dice to spend on a short rest to heal up. You still only get half back on a long rest or will you allow for getting all back. Healing Spirit doesn't look so bad now, eh?

I would be intrigued if the healing spell formulas gave the equivalent of HD spending. For example, Cure Light Wounds heals a HD + recipient's Con modifier + caster's ability modifier, + 1 HD per spell level slot. Maybe start at 2 HD + Con modifier to allow Healing Word be 1 HD + Con modifier. Wizards are rolling a d6 but Fighters are rolling a d10. It's a means of increasing the amount of healing if my earlier suggestion was too much of an increase.

[Easy_Lee]

Healing over time is another option. If instead of 1D8 + mod, you got 1D6 HP at the cast and at the start of each turn for the next X amount of time, that would make the spell more powerful without trivializing damage taken or lengthening combat more than a little.

[Kane0]

Diminishing returns? First round of healing is 1d12, second 1d10, third 1d8 and so on until your down to 1d4 healing for the rest of the duration.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't like healing lets the recipient spend hit dice. That's one among many things that turned me off of 4E. What happens when you're out of hit dice to spend? No healing for you! Aside which, it doesn't help you spend the hit dice, get damaged for more hurt, then when the combat is over you're still hurt bad and now have no hit dice to spend on a short rest to heal up. You still only get half back on a long rest or will you allow for getting all back. Healing Spirit doesn't look so bad now, eh?

I would be intrigued if the healing spell formulas gave the equivalent of HD spending. For example, Cure Light Wounds heals a HD + recipient's Con modifier + caster's ability modifier, + 1 HD per spell level slot. Maybe start at 2 HD + Con modifier to allow Healing Word be 1 HD + Con modifier. Wizards are rolling a d6 but Fighters are rolling a d10. It's a means of increasing the amount of healing if my earlier suggestion was too much of an increase.

As to the first, I thought the proposal was to have healing as (current amount) + (option to spend a scaling amount of HD on top). Basically, if you don't have any HD or don't want to spend them, you can take the current amount, but can spend more resources for a bigger heal. This would interact interestingly with the grave cleric's maximize healing option (all healing dice are maximized if the target is at 0 HP), which isn't a bad thing.

As to the second, I've been using a similar mechanic on some of my homebrew--abilities that state things like "the target regains hit points as if they had spent a hit die." I'd love more things to interact with HD--more options to spend them, to restore them, etc. Make them a cross-class resource. But that's kind of a separate topic.

[Hyde]

As to the first, I thought the proposal was to have healing as (current amount) + (option to spend a scaling amount of HD on top). Basically, if you don't have any HD or don't want to spend them, you can take the current amount, but can spend more resources for a bigger heal. This would interact interestingly with the grave cleric's maximize healing option (all healing dice are maximized if the target is at 0 HP), which isn't a bad thing.

As to the second, I've been using a similar mechanic on some of my homebrew--abilities that state things like "the target regains hit points as if they had spent a hit die." I'd love more things to interact with HD--more options to spend them, to restore them, etc. Make them a cross-class resource. But that's kind of a separate topic.

This, yes. I've been rather intrigued by it. I haven't taken an inventory of all the healing spells, but so far I'm inclined to apply it to only Cure Wounds. It's woefully underpowered, and there's not really a reason to cast it when Healing word is available as a bonus action, as has been discussed. I like leaving healing word as an inefficient (dice to slots wise) spot heal, but cure wounds- I really like the idea of allowing the target to spend hit dice in addition to the hit points normally gained. In the game I run and the game I play in, Hit Dice management has never been a pressing concern- the timing for a long rest ends up determined by other resources.

I like this change mostly because it achieves a lot of objectives. It encourages healing(1) without demanding a dedicated healer(2). I feel like adding an injury-at-zero mechanic would help discourage pop-ups, but I dislike the idea of delaying a character's return to the fight (and the game) for the same reasons PP addresses. Even a consequence as temporary as one round is not a bad idea.

The multi-round effects, especially when dealing with all characters in the theater of combat, such as the HoTs or diminishing returns, seem like they would be an absolute nightmare to adjudicate, and I wouldn't want to keep track of it regardless of any other added value.

Yes, the more I think about it, the more I think I'm gonna add this to Cure Wounds in my campaign. I don't think anyone else is left that can actually cast the spell, but hey.

[mormon_soldier]

If you feel like you are having this problem with your group, the best thing to do would be to talk to them about it; any rule change is going to have unintended consequences.

[Tanarii]

Adding to cure wounds the option to spend a HD per spell slot level would be a pretty dramatic combat boost, if that's what you're looking for. If you fight lots of smaller fights, it might be too much in combat healing. But if you fight fewer but Deadly or more fights, it'd give it some serious oomph against hard hitters, without disrupting the daily recovery mechanic at all.

Edit: if you do lots of smaller fights, CW (Not CLW lol) should be big enough. IMO at that point if you want to encourage in combat healing before zero you're gonna have to make hitting zero a bigger penalty or more dangerous.

[Pex]

Clarification understood but still not a fan. If you get back all HD after a long rest I'd only grumble.