Sticky Consequences In 5e

[Sparky McDibben]

Hey all,

I've seen a few folks on here say that they have difficulty getting consequences to stick in this edition. This is kind of confusing to me, and I'm looking for more information. Does anyone want to submit some war stories to tell me about a time when they had trouble making consequences land on their party? What happened? How did the party get out of the situation? What would you do differently next time? Did you change your DMing style at all, and how did those changes work out for you?

Thanks!

[Dork_Forge]

The big thing here is yo-yo healing, dropping to 0 has no serious consequences as long as someone can get you back up to 1hp. This is compounded by Healing Word being as stupidly good as it is (it should be an action cast at the very least) among other spells. Not all parties take to this kind of play, but for those that do I have come up with the following to deal with it:

-If you drop to 0 you gain a level of exhaustion, this level goes away on a short rest. If you go down again before a short rest then you gain a second level of exhaustion and normal exhaustion rules now apply (Long rest or Greater Restoration for each level)
-Death saves reset on a rest
-You cannot feed anyone else a Goodberry (I believe this is Raw). Goodberry does not benefit from Disciple of Life. If you eat more than one Goodberry in a 24 hour period you need to make an increasing DC Con save or be poisoned (what do you expect from shoving several days worth of nutrients down your throat?)

For parties that are inlined to rest when the mood takes them (made fairly easy by Rope Trick and Tiny Hut being so accessible and low level):

-If you rest in stupid places or at stupid times, bad things will happen, either to you or the plot will naturally progress whilst you're napping and you may fail

[heavyfuel]

Besides yo-yo healing, which I agree is the main problem, there's also the full heal on a long rest.

Nothing short of exhaustion lasts longer than a long rest, so even if you are at 1 HP with no more resources, a night's worth of sleep brings you back to full.

This is easily solved by using gritty realism rules. Just make sure you adjust the "encounter per day" ratio to mean "encounter per week", otherwise your players are gonna have a bad time.

[jojosskul]

For the yo-yo healing, I have enemies automatically try to finish off PCs if st least one of the following conditions have been met.

1. The enemies are at least somewhat intelligent and the PCs have made it apparent that there is at least one healer in the party. This doesn't mean someone has actually healed anyone, this means that a PC has done something like cast an obviously Cleric or Druid spell. What qualifies depends on bad guy intelligence. Super smart enemy could see a druid use produce flame, or even see a character with a prominent holy symbol and assume. Dumber enemies would need to see something like turn undead. Bard spells don't trigger this since not all Bard's use healing word (in practice maybe they do, but it's still a spell choice rather than a spell they can just prepare whenever.)

2. The enemies have seen any healing come from the party at all, not including yoyo healing, and are at least somewhat intelligent.

3. A character has already been pulled back up by yoyo healing once. Intelligence doesn't matter here, that person should have been down, now they're up. Enemy will make sure they stay down next time.

4. The primary motivation of the enemy is food. If it's dumb undead or an animal and their goal is to eat the players, they won't stop until they're sure their prey is dead. Bears, zombies, wolves, ghouls. An exception is made for animals trying to protect their young or if their on the losing end of a battle and trying to get away: Overall survival trumps hunger.

As far as resting whenever you want, I hold to the "you can't take a long rest more than once every 24 hours rule." If you want to sit around a full day to long rest after fighting some bandits on the road, you're going to have a bad time. Plot will progress, and other things will come and find you during that day you're just sitting still in the middle of nowhere.

[Anymage]

Most people think of it in terms of long-term afflictions to the character. Which does make sense. Any long term drawback will have some spell to remove it. (Partially because D&D is largely about constructively building your character and random character destruction puts off a ton of players. Partially because if there is some effect that put a long term penalty on your character sheet, it wouldn't be long before some other writer disliked it and included some other effect to remove it.) So long as spell slots recover to full every morning, the only thing that "lasting consequences" to your character sheet means is that someone will have to play a healer and spend spell slots to undo them.

(Exception: Destroying a character's stuff. People have some very heated views on the topic precisely because of that.)

If you want to get technical both exhaustion levels and spent hit dice can persist past a long rest. (Since you only get half your hit dice back on a long rest.) The fact that the latter hasn't been raised shows how often it's a factor in regular play. Otherwise the only persistent consequences are things that change the world around the PCs. Which in turn depends on how much the players actually care about consequences befalling NPCs.

[KorvinStarmast]

Besides yo-yo healing, which I agree is the main problem It is not a bug, it is a feature. Please remember who this game was meant to include: new players. It isn't fun to lie there dead while the fight is going on. It is fun to have a chance to get back up and get back into play, though one is still in danger.

Those of you against yo yo healing: it's a style issue, and a matter of taste.

For the yo-yo healing, I have enemies automatically try to finish off PCs if st least one of the following conditions have been met. At some tables, this level of realism/lethality is welcome (and it means that the party needs to get enemies away from fallen team mates, which is a good 'team work' thing to emphasize.

At other tables, it is not welcome to have an unconscious player sit there helplessly while an monster kills them.

Just make sure that you know your players.

I got to a 'one failed death save away from PC death' at level 13 thanks to being hit while down by a frost giant during a major fight in the Giants Trinity (TFtYP) adventure.
Tense moment, to be sure.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

This is compounded by Healing Word being as stupidly good as it is (it should be an action cast at the very least)

Just popping in to say this is not really a good idea. The reason why Healing Word is a bonus action is specifically so that no one gets stuck playing the "Required Healer" role and has to do nothing on every turn but heal. If HW is a bonus action, you can still heal and drop some cool stuff like do make some attacks, cast a cantrip, grapple, push people over, etc. Having to do nothing but Heal round after round is not very fun and a major reason why people often don't want to play healer types. Changing this is a net good for the edition.

It's less that Healing Word is stupidly good (it isn't, the edition is basically balanced around it, its more that other healing spells are bad and should be brought up to HW's level) and more that HW enables a variety of playstyles, instead of forcing someone in the party to be the Designated Healer who doesn't get to have fun like everybody else.

[Dork_Forge]

Just popping in to say this is not really a good idea. The reason why Healing Word is a bonus action is specifically so that no one gets stuck playing the "Required Healer" role and has to do nothing on every turn but heal. If HW is a bonus action, you can still heal and drop some cool stuff like do make some attacks, cast a cantrip, grapple, push people over, etc. Having to do nothing but Heal round after round is not very fun and a major reason why people often don't want to play healer types. Changing this is a net good for the edition.

It's less that Healing Word is stupidly good (it isn't, the edition is basically balanced around it, its more that other healing spells are bad and should be brought up to HW's level) and more that HW enables a variety of playstyles, instead of forcing someone in the party to be the Designated Healer who doesn't get to have fun like everybody else.

You seem to be mistaking yoyo healing with actual healing, no one is casting Healing Word turn after turn, it's a terrible resource to hp regained ratio for that. A bonus action healing spell isn't bad, a bonus action healing spell at 1st level that's also ranged? Thats a bit much.

I'd also argue that if your party needs healing round after round, then something is going very, very wrong. Healing is so diverse in 5e and classes so potentially independent for resources (and some self healing) that the 'heal bot' trope will never really apply. If you're healing nonstop then you'll be out of slots/x resources in no time and if that healing was needed then a TPK will follow.

I'd be interested if you think that as-is HW is useful for more than pop up healing (you can certianly make it more, but on it's own that's basically all it is).

[Amnestic]

Slow Natural Healing is a potential alternative to gritty realism too - removes the long rest heal entirely, but you still regain the hit dice (half your max, as normal) and can spend them as if it was a short rest.

I'm also considering a change where death save fails don't reset when you get healed/stabilise, only on a long rest (in addition to slow natural healing). It doesn't negate yo-yo healing but it does put a lot more urgency on avoiding death saves in the first place, because each fail sticks around, so any damage you take while down quickly becomes a doom clock over your head.

As for consequences outside of healing...you can always get infected with lycanthropy :D

There's Lingering Injuries variant in the DMG too for losing limbs and the like but people usually aren't a fan of those as standard for a variety of reasons. I think Lingering Injuries can be a good idea but it's often not to the taste of the style of game people want to play. If you're running a meatgrinder where characters drop quickly and are replaced quickly, I think it (or an adaptation of it) works pretty well.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

You seem to be mistaking yoyo healing with actual healing, no one is casting Healing Word turn after turn, it's a terrible resource to hp regained ratio for that. A bonus action healing spell isn't bad, a bonus action healing spell at 1st level that's also ranged? Thats a bit much.

I'd also argue that if your party needs healing round after round, then something is going very, very wrong. Healing is so diverse in 5e and classes so potentially independent for resources (and some self healing) that the 'heal bot' trope will never really apply. If you're healing nonstop then you'll be out of slots/x resources in no time and if that healing was needed then a TPK will follow.

I'd be interested if you think that as-is HW is useful for more than pop up healing (you can certianly make it more, but on it's own that's basically all it is).

HW is only useful for pop-up healing because pop-up healing is basically the only useful form of healing in 5e. There are exceptions (mainly out-of-combat recovery which has somewhat been supplanted by hit dice). The actual amount of HP gained is not important in the least; if HW only ever restored 1 HP, it would only be slightly less effective than it is currently. The point is just to get allies up from 0, not to allow them to tank another hit, which most healing does not accomplish in 5e.

Cure Wounds and other such spells are very quickly outpaced by damage, they are too expensive in terms of action economy, and most of the time you would be better served dropping the spell slot on a control or damage spell to prevent an enemy from getting another attack rather than partially undoing their previous attack.

And yes, I've had games where HW has had to be cast several turns in a row. In official modules, no less. 5e is designed for characters to hit 0 in combat, the derogatory "yoyo healing" term is referring to something 100% intentional in the design of the game. If you don't like that, that is fine, but it's how the edition was designed.

Healing word means you don't have to build a character entirely around healing, and that "healer" is not a required role on any and all adventures. As long as your group has someone that can throw out healing words when necessary, you're basically 100% good, and that's a good change! It means no one gets pigeonholed and no one is forced to play a role that they aren't interested in.

A casualty of this is that people who do like playing a sole, dedicated healer and spending every turn healing are left a bit in the dust. It's still somewhat possible as a life cleric or something similar, but generally due to the aforementioned issues with combat healing it often falls behind. But I'd rather have the issue of healing being somewhat lackluster than the issue of someone having to be bullied into playing Healbot every time a new campaign starts.

[PhantomSoul]

5e is designed for characters to hit 0 in combat, the derogatory "yoyo healing" term is referring to something 100% intentional in the design of the game. If you don't like that, that is fine, but it's how the edition was designed.

Or it was a consequence of making healing in other contexts ineffective and/or inefficient; it's a by-product of both intentional design (auto-up) combined with failure (making actual healing viable).

[Darzil]

It's also why, despite being nerfed for conga line by errata, Healing Spirit is not as bad as it looks afterwards.

Cast Healing Spirit on a fallen ally. You can then get them above 0, once per turn, at the start of their turn, for 1+Wis Mod turns. (You put them down, but they get up again...)

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Or it was a consequence of making healing in other contexts ineffective and/or inefficient; it's a by-product of both intentional design (auto-up) combined with failure (making actual healing viable).

I think healing being non-viable was an explicit design goal. From what I remember, the devs thought that with decent in-combat healing, fights would drag on for far too long as both sides depleted all of their healing resources to stay up, so they wanted to make sure that damage would always outpace healing to discourage that from happening so that attackers always had the edge. I don't think that was a failure necessarily, just a different priority than one might expect from previous editions.

[JackPhoenix]

When someone mentions consequences in an RPG, HP attrition is about the last thing I think off.

[stoutstien]

When someone mentions consequences in an RPG, HP attrition is about the last thing I think off.

Ditto. The HP race never amounts to more than a side show. Consequences involve choices.

[Luccan]

As for consequences outside of healing...you can always get infected with lycanthropy :D



I'm not up on my 5e lycanthropy, but isn't it super easy to cure?

[Asisreo1]

HW is only useful for pop-up healing because pop-up healing is basically the only useful form of healing in 5e. There are exceptions (mainly out-of-combat recovery which has somewhat been supplanted by hit dice). The actual amount of HP gained is not important in the least; if HW only ever restored 1 HP, it would only be slightly less effective than it is currently. The point is just to get allies up from 0, not to allow them to tank another hit, which most healing does not accomplish in 5e.

Cure Wounds and other such spells are very quickly outpaced by damage, they are too expensive in terms of action economy, and most of the time you would be better served dropping the spell slot on a control or damage spell to prevent an enemy from getting another attack rather than partially undoing their previous attack.

And yes, I've had games where HW has had to be cast several turns in a row. In official modules, no less. 5e is designed for characters to hit 0 in combat, the derogatory "yoyo healing" term is referring to something 100% intentional in the design of the game. If you don't like that, that is fine, but it's how the edition was designed.

Healing word means you don't have to build a character entirely around healing, and that "healer" is not a required role on any and all adventures. As long as your group has someone that can throw out healing words when necessary, you're basically 100% good, and that's a good change! It means no one gets pigeonholed and no one is forced to play a role that they aren't interested in.

A casualty of this is that people who do like playing a sole, dedicated healer and spending every turn healing are left a bit in the dust. It's still somewhat possible as a life cleric or something similar, but generally due to the aforementioned issues with combat healing it often falls behind. But I'd rather have the issue of healing being somewhat lackluster than the issue of someone having to be bullied into playing Healbot every time a new campaign starts.
Sole Healing is actually fairly decent for its level across the game, given what it is.

Remember, Cure Wounds is specifically a 1st-level spell that imparts 1st-level benefits. An average of 7.5 HP might not seem like alot until you realize wizards will typically have 7-8 HP completely on their own. And while most monsters average roughly 5-7 damage on their turn, the mighty swing of dice at this level can make your healing quite effective. Although it may also cause it to be less effective than you'd like.

Prayer of Healing is the next healing spell. Its obviously out-of-combat healing but assuming 4 party members, a total of 8d8+12 HP of healing is not bad at all for a second level spell. Remember, our Wizard's probably walking around with 17 HP so the average of 12 HP you've given them in 10 minutes is probably very appreciated.

Mass Healing Word is useful in scenarios where a TPK may be imminent, but Beacon of Hope is a really useful spell that actually does facilitates extremely effective healing while also giving other useful benefits like advantage on Wis and death saves. If you decide to cast a 2nd-level cure wounds while the target is under this effect, you're doing roughly 20HP of healing to a single target at-once. Quite a significant portion of healing for the spell, and you can keep it up to have the benefit continue.

Heal is a high level spell, but instant 70 HP to a target which actually exceeds the Wizard's probable 57 or 68HP. Over 100% of a certain average PC's HP can be recovered in a single action.

Regenerate is a spell that yo-yo heals automatically for you. You don't cast is in combat, but it still works in-combat since its a concentration-free HoT spell. If a player gets knocked out on their turn, they immediately get back up at the start of their turn. It last a whole hour, too. Even if they end up never getting knocked out, they still gain over 600HP from just the regeneration. Its almost wasteful to cast the spell without getting into combat.

Mass Heal is literally just an in-combat heal all button. Its expensive for its spell slot, though it can literally turn TPK's around on its head.

All of this without even being a Life Cleric, which basically makes even the worst in-combat healing spells somewhat viable. Clocking Healing Word to be 1d4+5=7.5 damage. The same as a same-level Cure Wounds. Cure Wounds is upgraded to 10.5 damage which can start to completely heal even rogues and warlocks.

If you can't tell, I love clerics and how well they can heal. When I play spellcasters, I'd rather more direct approaches than being a type of control god.

[Sparky McDibben]

Ditto. The HP race never amounts to more than a side show. Consequences involve choices.


When someone mentions consequences in an RPG, HP attrition is about the last thing I think off.

That's great to hear! What other consequences do you use? Do you have difficulty getting them to stick? Why or why not?

[Amnestic]

I'm not up on my 5e lycanthropy, but isn't it super easy to cure?

ehhh, yes+no.

Playing strictly by the book it requires Remove Curse specifically (or Wish if they're a natural born lycanthrope). It's on enough spell lists that chances are someone might have it...but then again maybe not. Wizards and warlocks not really likely to pick it up immediately since it's fairly niche so you're reliant on cleric or paladin, and hoping they're a high enough level and get it to you before you embrace the curse.

It's a nail with a very specific hammer, in other words. The hammer's not rare but it's not exactly common unless your group has specifically a cleric (usually not an issue, but sometimes is, only 4-5 people per party usually after all).

[Xervous]

I think healing being non-viable was an explicit design goal. From what I remember, the devs thought that with decent in-combat healing, fights would drag on for far too long as both sides depleted all of their healing resources to stay up, so they wanted to make sure that damage would always outpace healing to discourage that from happening so that attackers always had the edge. I don't think that was a failure necessarily, just a different priority than one might expect from previous editions.

Out of curiosity which editions are you citing as having healing outpace damage?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I have a guess that at least part of the relative dearth of long-term things (and the ease of removing diseases & curses) comes from not wanting to force a cleric into each party. From what I understand, 3e basically required someone who could remove/prevent a long list of conditions. Which basically meant a cleric/condition-bot.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

Out of curiosity which editions are you citing as having healing outpace damage?

For this specific quote I think this was something that came up in playtesting early versions of 5e specifically, I'm not sure how much it applied to previous editions as I don't have as much experience with those, but from my (ancient) memory of playing 3.5 I remember Healing being far more of a requirement for a group as opposed to 5e just needing Healing Word and you're good to go.

[Asisreo1]

When someone mentions consequences in an RPG, HP attrition is about the last thing I think off.
Agreed. When I think of consequences in a TTRPG, I think of overarching story consequences. Being captured, losing position, being routed, losing a hostage, running out of time.

Things that aren't always numerical but are still tangible to the players. Now that they failed, their patron won't be able to get them that super cool weapon they were gunning for. Or the Noble won't grant them land and favors. Or the church doesn't have the components to resurrect the fallen PC.

Consequences needn't be forcing your players through a slog. It can be as simple as putting a curse on them or as complex as making a powerful enemy. HP tax is something players may immediately notice but its also the easiest to alleviate.

[Amdy_vill]

it's based mostly on the penalty systems of the game or more accurately the lack. the only machine that sticks around after a long rest is exhaustion unless you are using some of the variant rules. this means long rest cure everything. players are also so powerful you can't really prevent them from long resting with random encounters without killing them. because of this it kinda prevents long-term effects from combat and removes resource management.

It is possible to make consequences stick but it requires "expirance". you need to know how to homebrew effectively and how to make the story important to your players. that or dive into good homebrew from others.

[Xervous]

For this specific quote I think this was something that came up in playtesting early versions of 5e specifically, I'm not sure how much it applied to previous editions as I don't have as much experience with those, but from my (ancient) memory of playing 3.5 I remember Healing being far more of a requirement for a group as opposed to 5e just needing Healing Word and you're good to go.

Healing was required out of combat but rarely saw use in combat as the numbers couldn’t keep pace with incoming damage and picking people up with spells was only good if you expected combat to drag. If someone went down in 1-3 rounds odds are you wouldn’t be able to keep them up and the fight is almost over (Tpk or victory), round 6? Pick em back up if this looks like it’s going on a while, though most combats didn’t last much longer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Agreed. When I think of consequences in a TTRPG, I think of overarching story consequences. Being captured, losing position, being routed, losing a hostage, running out of time.

Things that aren't always numerical but are still tangible to the players. Now that they failed, their patron won't be able to get them that super cool weapon they were gunning for. Or the Noble won't grant them land and favors. Or the church doesn't have the components to resurrect the fallen PC.

Consequences needn't be forcing your players through a slog. It can be as simple as putting a curse on them or as complex as making a powerful enemy. HP tax is something players may immediately notice but its also the easiest to alleviate.

I agree. This is what is meaningful to my players. Mechanical penalties, not so much.


it's based mostly on the penalty systems of the game or more accurately the lack. the only machine that sticks around after a long rest is exhaustion unless you are using some of the variant rules. this means long rest cure everything. players are also so powerful you can't really prevent them from long resting with random encounters without killing them. because of this it kinda prevents long-term effects from combat and removes resource management.

It is possible to make consequences stick but it requires "expirance". you need to know how to homebrew effectively and how to make the story important to your players. that or dive into good homebrew from others.

Lack of mechanical consequences =/= lack of consequences. In fact, IMX mechanical consequences are the least meaningful consequences. Risking the people they care about? That's a major consequence. Failing their mission? That's a major consequence. Getting kicked out of the village they're supposed to be protecting? That's a major consequence. Having a penalty written on their sheet? Meh.

Not everything in the game has to be reflected in the mechanics to count. There's a fiction layer, to which the mechanics are just a UI.


Healing was required out of combat but rarely saw use in combat as the numbers couldn’t keep pace with incoming damage and picking people up with spells was only good if you expected combat to drag. If someone went down in 1-3 rounds odds are you wouldn’t be able to keep them up and the fight is almost over (Tpk or victory), round 6? Pick em back up if this looks like it’s going on a while, though most combats didn’t last much longer.

IMX, pop-up healing runs major risks. The biggest one is that you'll spend a turn doing nothing. Which is a huge loss-of-fun for my players. The whole "pop-up healing means no lost actions" thing only applies if the healer
a) goes before the downed player
b) has resources available to heal
c) has actions/positioning available to heal
most of which are risky in any game I've played.

People don't like spending their turns in combat doing nothing but rolling death saves. My players, as sub-optimal as this is (by pure numerics) actually do heal when people are low. Because they're not likely to eliminate the threat on their turn, so keeping someone up for their turn is what's more fun. Plus, they tend to see their characters as actual people, not game tokens. They don't want to go to 0, because their characters don't want to go unconscious. To me, that's good roleplay right there.

[Dork_Forge]

HW is only useful for pop-up healing because pop-up healing is basically the only useful form of healing in 5e. There are exceptions (mainly out-of-combat recovery which has somewhat been supplanted by hit dice). The actual amount of HP gained is not important in the least; if HW only ever restored 1 HP, it would only be slightly less effective than it is currently. The point is just to get allies up from 0, not to allow them to tank another hit, which most healing does not accomplish in 5e.

This is just plain wrong, if you just pick up a single spell and expect it to meaningfully heal across all levels of play, then yes it will fail. You can meaningfully heal in 5e, it just requires a little more effort then throwing a 1st level spell out at level 3+. If all you ever do is yoyo healing then don't be surprised when PCs die (AOE damage, monsters going for them whilst down, rolling a 1 on their save...), lose meaningful abilities or resources (letting the Barbarian down means they lose a Rage and subsequent bonus action if the have another available for example) and you know what? Getting knocked on your butt repeatedly isn't fun.



Cure Wounds and other such spells are very quickly outpaced by damage, they are too expensive in terms of action economy, and most of the time you would be better served dropping the spell slot on a control or damage spell to prevent an enemy from getting another attack rather than partially undoing their previous attack.

What are you really expecting from first level spells? They provide substantial and meaningful healing for the first 3 (maybe 4) levels of play, you get them for 1st level, why should they do better than that? Heck even CW/HW do a lot better if you're actually doing more than just picking them as spells, Life Cleric throws another 3hp on top and Alchemist Artificer can throw up to 5hp extra.

Sometimes damage and control is the better choice, sometimes healing is, personally I find healing to normally be the stronger RP choice. Why would you adventure with people that allow you to lose consciousness and come so close to dying so frequently?


And yes, I've had games where HW has had to be cast several turns in a row. In official modules, no less. 5e is designed for characters to hit 0 in combat, the derogatory "yoyo healing" term is referring to something 100% intentional in the design of the game. If you don't like that, that is fine, but it's how the edition was designed.

I'm gonna need a source that yo-yo healing was intentional, because that's just not good design.

If you would like to use the anecdote from a module then please provide more details: Encounter? party composition? Level?

Casting HW back to back sounds like a party on the verge of a death spiral, especially if the initiative order means the downed PC loses rounds.



Healing word means you don't have to build a character entirely around healing, and that "healer" is not a required role on any and all adventures. As long as your group has someone that can throw out healing words when necessary, you're basically 100% good, and that's a good change! It means no one gets pigeonholed and no one is forced to play a role that they aren't interested in.

No roles are required in 5e, but if you are the only one in the party with the ability to heal (even just Healing Word) then you are the healer by default. You don't have to act on it of course, but it is true.

What you see as a good change I see as dropping to 0 being largely meaningless outside of low levels. Mix in reanimation spells and death is very hard to make stick in the average encounter. Some people might find that fun, I'm not one of them though.


A casualty of this is that people who do like playing a sole, dedicated healer and spending every turn healing are left a bit in the dust. It's still somewhat possible as a life cleric or something similar, but generally due to the aforementioned issues with combat healing it often falls behind. But I'd rather have the issue of healing being somewhat lackluster than the issue of someone having to be bullied into playing Healbot every time a new campaign starts.

Someone being bullied into being a healbot will always be a social issue, not a game one.

This statement about healing falling behind doesn't have to be true either, if you want to heal then you can optimise for it without much trouble and the Healer feat (obvious pick) is easily added to any build and provides a meaningful amount of scaling healing as well as a yoyo pick up if needed.



People don't like spending their turns in combat doing nothing but rolling death saves. My players, as sub-optimal as this is (by pure numerics) actually do heal when people are low. Because they're not likely to eliminate the threat on their turn, so keeping someone up for their turn is what's more fun. Plus, they tend to see their characters as actual people, not game tokens. They don't want to go to 0, because their characters don't want to go unconscious. To me, that's good roleplay right there.


Everything you said yes but this 100%

[stoutstien]

That's great to hear! What other consequences do you use? Do you have difficulty getting them to stick? Why or why not?
I don't tend to have any issues with them having the desired effect but I build it into my encounter and campaign design.

A good rule of thumb is to try to make sure the players and characters have reason to care about the results of their decisions.

[Willie the Duck]

I've seen a few folks on here say that they have difficulty getting consequences to stick in this edition. This is kind of confusing to me, and I'm looking for more information.

There's no one thing people mean by this. For some, it's that hitting 0 hp isn't really down for the count. For others it is that a Long Rest wipes away most all issues (not 100% true, as you only get 1/2 your HD and 1 exhaustion level, but still). Even spell slot recharging is relatively nominal compared to when you had to take your spellbook with you for every recharge and spend 10-minutes per spell level per casting. I played a lot of basic-classic, so being raised with just a week downtime or similar is actually pretty familiar, but if you were used to losing a point of Con or a level (or 25,000 gp in the edition where gold mattered most) for coming back from the dead, this too can seem like consequence-free play. Mind you, a lot of these are based on changes away from things that were nearly universally panned. Coming from the AD&D days, I don't know anyone who actually liked the 3 months to naturally heal for a high level fighter; and level drain -- the one really really solid long term consequence other than perma-death -- was one of the most hated parts of the game (so much so that spells which undid it came about very quickly, meaning that it became nothing but a bookkeeping nightmare). That said, being glad for the removal of a hated thing isn't the same as loving the system without it.


Besides yo-yo healing, which I agree is the main problem, there's also the full heal on a long rest.
Nothing short of exhaustion lasts longer than a long rest, so even if you are at 1 HP with no more resources, a night's worth of sleep brings you back to full.
This is easily solved by using gritty realism rules. Just make sure you adjust the "encounter per day" ratio to mean "encounter per week", otherwise your players are gonna have a bad time.
Agreed. Like many of the major so-called problems of the game, the DMG has helpful optional subsystems specifically designed with this issue in mind.



Does anyone want to submit some war stories to tell me about a time when they had trouble making consequences land on their party? What happened? How did the party get out of the situation? What would you do differently next time? Did you change your DMing style at all, and how did those changes work out for you?

I don't think this is really about what people are talking. As a DM, you can always make consequences stick. Party took too long rescuing the missing kid, thus the kid died. Party mouthed off to the noble A, and now they aren't welcome at pivotal place B. And so forth.

[noob]

I think it would be fun if we swapped exhaustion and hit point recovery and make exhaustion easy to recover and hp hard to recover(remove most healing spells for example and remove that hit dice thing and make people instead recover hp in function of their level and con modifier(for example level + con modifier per long rest)).
It would make the game less far from reality(people recover from exhaustion way faster than from wounds) but it does not mesh up well with the current design.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think it would be fun if we swapped exhaustion and hit point recovery and make exhaustion easy to recover and hp hard to recover(remove most healing spells for example and remove that hit dice thing and make people instead recover hp in function of their level and con modifier(for example level + con modifier per long rest)).
It would make the game less far from reality(people recover from exhaustion way faster than from wounds) but it does not mesh up well with the current design.

That would require a total overhaul.

And remember, HP is not meat[1]. You can be down to 1 HP and only have cuts and scrapes. And serious (as in medical) exhaustion doesn't heal overnight. After one all-nighter or day of being really sick, it often takes me several days of good rest to get back to 100%.

[1] unless you alter the setting to match. I've done so (at least experimentally)--it turns out to work just fine, although it imposes some narrative changes and requires abandoning the "D&D world is real world + magic" idea which never worked well anyway.

[Pex]

Sole Healing is actually fairly decent for its level across the game, given what it is.

Remember, Cure Wounds is specifically a 1st-level spell that imparts 1st-level benefits. An average of 7.5 HP might not seem like alot until you realize wizards will typically have 7-8 HP completely on their own. And while most monsters average roughly 5-7 damage on their turn, the mighty swing of dice at this level can make your healing quite effective. Although it may also cause it to be less effective than you'd like.

Prayer of Healing is the next healing spell. Its obviously out-of-combat healing but assuming 4 party members, a total of 8d8+12 HP of healing is not bad at all for a second level spell. Remember, our Wizard's probably walking around with 17 HP so the average of 12 HP you've given them in 10 minutes is probably very appreciated.

Mass Healing Word is useful in scenarios where a TPK may be imminent, but Beacon of Hope is a really useful spell that actually does facilitates extremely effective healing while also giving other useful benefits like advantage on Wis and death saves. If you decide to cast a 2nd-level cure wounds while the target is under this effect, you're doing roughly 20HP of healing to a single target at-once. Quite a significant portion of healing for the spell, and you can keep it up to have the benefit continue.

Heal is a high level spell, but instant 70 HP to a target which actually exceeds the Wizard's probable 57 or 68HP. Over 100% of a certain average PC's HP can be recovered in a single action.

Regenerate is a spell that yo-yo heals automatically for you. You don't cast is in combat, but it still works in-combat since its a concentration-free HoT spell. If a player gets knocked out on their turn, they immediately get back up at the start of their turn. It last a whole hour, too. Even if they end up never getting knocked out, they still gain over 600HP from just the regeneration. Its almost wasteful to cast the spell without getting into combat.

Mass Heal is literally just an in-combat heal all button. Its expensive for its spell slot, though it can literally turn TPK's around on its head.

All of this without even being a Life Cleric, which basically makes even the worst in-combat healing spells somewhat viable. Clocking Healing Word to be 1d4+5=7.5 damage. The same as a same-level Cure Wounds. Cure Wounds is upgraded to 10.5 damage which can start to completely heal even rogues and warlocks.

If you can't tell, I love clerics and how well they can heal. When I play spellcasters, I'd rather more direct approaches than being a type of control god.

The Alchemist Artificer, with 20 IN, can cast Healing Word for 1d4 + 10 points of healing, 1d4 + 8 with 18 IN. That's a good thing. It's a feature healing is passed around among the classes. 5E does have consequences, but it's better off those consequences are about the campaign story and not keep PCs being miserable in game math. There are game systems where such misery is the whole point or otherwise part of the system. 5E is not one of those games nor should it be nor wrong not to be.

[Osuniev]

Not directly relevant, but :
- my Houserule to Healing Word is that you need to be able to hear the word. (And you cannot hear if you're inconscious)

Sticky consequences.... Well :
- Every kind of wound short of actual loss of limb (which the rules don't really offer) disappear on a Long Rest
- Any curse, disease or even death can be cured by a LvL 5 Cleric (if he's prepared)
- any loss of ressource is cured in one Long Rest, TWO for Hit Dice (which is rarely relevant).


Meaning the only long term consequences the game has are TPKs, or scenario specific (loss of someone's trust, failure of a quest, etc). Many of these CAN even be solved by high level spells, like Modify Memory.

Gritty Realism variant solved most of these for me. Sure, my PCs can still resurrect dead NPC, but they feel the cost of every spell when it's one week to get them back.

[Pex]

Healing was required out of combat but rarely saw use in combat as the numbers couldn’t keep pace with incoming damage and picking people up with spells was only good if you expected combat to drag. If someone went down in 1-3 rounds odds are you wouldn’t be able to keep them up and the fight is almost over (Tpk or victory), round 6? Pick em back up if this looks like it’s going on a while, though most combats didn’t last much longer.

Personal experience has shown that at least in Pathfinder 1E the Life Oracle when dedicated to the cause in build healing the party in combat is a viable and in fact very strong tactic. The rest of the party can go hog wild on offense because the Life Oracle keeps them alive and healthy. A player did the math once, keeping track of damage taken and hit points healed. The DM threw the proverbial kitchen sink at us, but not one PC dropped. The player calculated I effectively tripled the party's hit points. Granted this was for a fight that required everyone to go nova, including my Oracle. My one PC's one turn worth of healing action (standard, move, and swift) completely negated three bad guys' worth of harmful actions. The DM saw it. He eventually learned to have any challenge against the party he needed to take my character out of the fight fast. Not drop me to death's door necessarily, but keep me occupied enough I couldn't heal.

[Amdy_vill]

I agree. This is what is meaningful to my players. Mechanical penalties, not so much.



Lack of mechanical consequences =/= lack of consequences. In fact, IMX mechanical consequences are the least meaningful consequences. Risking the people they care about? That's a major consequence. Failing their mission? That's a major consequence. Getting kicked out of the village they're supposed to be protecting? That's a major consequence. Having a penalty written on their sheet? Meh.

Not everything in the game has to be reflected in the mechanics to count. There's a fiction layer, to which the mechanics are just a UI.


I did bring up story engagement but that's not everyone's cup of tea, I have found most 5e players are actually in the complete opposite bout. caring more about mechanical abilities and the light-hearted fun of a story light game. but even then if players aren't invested in the stories it becomes hard to create consequences.

Personally, I care more about the story but that seems to be less common with 5e than most people portray it as.

[JeffreyGator]

My table has tired a few alternatives to the HP management game.

1) We tried slow natural healing and since discarded it.
a) Encounters are designed and CR is balanced around characters being at full hp
b) It was easy to meta game around and just creating more dice-rolling and math.
i) Life cleric slow rest 5xlevel
ii) MC Warlock / Celestial Warlock with slow rest Cure spells
iii) Healing spirit (pre-nerf as tested)

2) Exhaustion at zero hp.
a) This has been our rule for the past six months and is adding to the game.
b) encourages healing before people get to zero (this party has lots of healing available)

[stoutstien]

HP alongside any other resource management are the quintessential tension mechanics. While they can intensify decision making and enhanced gameplay they are worthless alone.

[Sorinth]

I do find it a bit ironic that people complain about healing word yet even without HW to yo-yo someone and keep them alive the consequences of dying are trivial anyways thanks to Revivify which is never mentioned when talking about consequences.


I certainly get the hate of yoyo healing in terms of verisimilitude. If I wanted to address that side of things I would do something like this

Failed Death saving throws only reset to 0 after a Long Rest, successes reset once you are above 0 HP
When you drop to 0 HP you automatically suffer 1 death saving throw failure
You make a death saving throw once per minute instead of round
When taking damage you don't suffer automatic failures, instead you have disadvanatage on all future death saving throws until you die or are above 0 HP.


This makes it less likely you'd want/need to bring a downed ally up from 0 HP, in most cases you are better off finishing the fight as fast as possible and then stabilizing everyone.

[IsaacsAlterEgo]

This is just plain wrong, if you just pick up a single spell and expect it to meaningfully heal across all levels of play, then yes it will fail. You can meaningfully heal in 5e, it just requires a little more effort then throwing a 1st level spell out at level 3+. If all you ever do is yoyo healing then don't be surprised when PCs die (AOE damage, monsters going for them whilst down, rolling a 1 on their save...), lose meaningful abilities or resources (letting the Barbarian down means they lose a Rage and subsequent bonus action if the have another available for example) and you know what? Getting knocked on your butt repeatedly isn't fun.

What are you really expecting from first level spells? They provide substantial and meaningful healing for the first 3 (maybe 4) levels of play, you get them for 1st level, why should they do better than that? Heck even CW/HW do a lot better if you're actually doing more than just picking them as spells, Life Cleric throws another 3hp on top and Alchemist Artificer can throw up to 5hp extra.

Sometimes damage and control is the better choice, sometimes healing is, personally I find healing to normally be the stronger RP choice. Why would you adventure with people that allow you to lose consciousness and come so close to dying so frequently?

Can't really agree here. For one thing, Healing Word does meaningfully heal across all tiers of play, even at 20th level; being able to pick someone up from 0 is the draw, not the numerical value of HP's healed. If it healed 0.00001 HP, that would be okay, too.:smallsmile:

The first long term campaign I played, I played a Cleric. Cure Wounds was my only healing spell for the early levels, and it was a huge drain on the group. Instead of being able to pick an ally up and still contribute meaningfully I would have to spend an entire turn restoring roughly 7 hp, maybe 12 if I wanted to burn a second level slot, which was often under the amount anything but minion-level foes were hitting for. Cure Wounds healing is deliberately designed to be under enemy damage levels; which means that mathematically healing is almost always a bad idea in combat; if they are going to go down in 2 hits whether you heal them or not, it's a wasted action and a wasted spell slot, so you are better off healing reactively rather than proactively. That may not be the fun game style for you but its the one that works most of the time in 5e. There are some exceptions for higher level spells but they tend to be a massive resource expenditure that still often only allows a character to take one or two more blows; a control spell, defensive buff, or a damaging spell that removes another attacker will almost always be better. Again there are exceptions...But in my time playing, very few and far between.

As for the last point... I don't believe you're "allowing" someone to come close to dying. I think most people would simply be appreciative of the fact that you are literally pulling them from the brink of death on a regular basis, rather than angrily grumble that you don't have the power to heal gaping wounds within 6 seconds of their being received.






I'm gonna need a source that yo-yo healing was intentional, because that's just not good design.

If you would like to use the anecdote from a module then please provide more details: Encounter? party composition? Level?

Casting HW back to back sounds like a party on the verge of a death spiral, especially if the initiative order means the downed PC loses rounds.
Good design is subjective. :smallsmile: A source isn't really necessary, though. Look at Lost Mines of Phandelver, an adventure that starts at level 1. One of the first opponents you face is capable of dealing 2d8+2 damage, more on a sneak attack. Most level 1 classes are not capable of surviving that no matter how they are healed. They are, however, perfectly capable of being brought back up to 4-5 hitpoints with Healing Word. Similar scenarios exist in most official modules, but off the top of my head I've played SKT, Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Phandelver and Dragonheist.



No roles are required in 5e, but if you are the only one in the party with the ability to heal (even just Healing Word) then you are the healer by default. You don't have to act on it of course, but it is true.

What you see as a good change I see as dropping to 0 being largely meaningless outside of low levels. Mix in reanimation spells and death is very hard to make stick in the average encounter. Some people might find that fun, I'm not one of them though.

I don't see it as meaningless. Dropping to 0 causes resource expenditure, it eats up bonus actions which are still important, especially for a cleric, and most importantly of all, it means that you cannot act until you are raised; something that may not always happen depending on circumstances. If you are not attended to in time, you may die. That is enough.



Someone being bullied into being a healbot will always be a social issue, not a game one.

This statement about healing falling behind doesn't have to be true either, if you want to heal then you can optimise for it without much trouble and the Healer feat (obvious pick) is easily added to any build and provides a meaningful amount of scaling healing as well as a yoyo pick up if needed.

It is a game issue because if it is required to have a healbot to be successful, someone in the group is going to have to do it whether they want to or not. This is the game encouraging someone to be forced into a role they don't want, which in my opinion is itself bad game design.

And I simply don't agree that the Healer feat holds up beyond the earliest levels, other than as a method to pick people up from 0. It does have a very good niche in the Thief Rogue though, being able to function as a substitute for having access to healing word in a pinch.

[heavyfuel]

It is not a bug, it is a feature.

Citation Needed.

Still, it can be the intention of devs. Doesn't change the fact that it makes sticky consequences far more difficult to implement, which is the entire point of this thread. Solutions to this problem.

Like in the other thread about running a Survival campaign it was mentioned that Goodberry should be nerfed. Goodberry providing nourishment is the intention, but that specific DM wants tochange that to better accomodate the challenges they have in mind.

[Pex]

And I simply don't agree that the Healer feat holds up beyond the earliest levels, other than as a method to pick people up from 0. It does have a very good niche in the Thief Rogue though, being able to function as a substitute for having access to healing word in a pinch.

I wouldn't use Healer feat in combat, except maybe to stabilize at 1 hit point. It's a once per short rest resource per person. I find it better for after combat healing, even if you're not short resting soon after. It's an extra healing potion per player per short rest and can save a spell slot use. At higher level it's supplemental healing, and I'm fine with that.

[Asisreo1]

Can't really agree here. For one thing, Healing Word does meaningfully heal across all tiers of play, even at 20th level; being able to pick someone up from 0 is the draw, not the numerical value of HP's healed. If it healed 0.00001 HP, that would be okay, too.:smallsmile:

There seems to be, in my opinion, a core misunderstanding about HP and death which is often summarized in your statement.

There is a mechanical difference between being at 1HP and full HP in terms of how a character interacts with the world around it. And there are significant differences between being at 0 HP and dead.

A low-level character has less maximum HP, therefore 1HP may resemble roughly 10-15% of their maximum HP. A character dies when the damage they take is greater than or equal to the sum of their current HP and their HP maximum. At full HP, the enemy must do 200% of their target's HP in a single hit to outright kill their target. Usually unachievable unless they manage a critical hit. At 1 HP, an enemy may need to only do about 110% of the target's maximum HP to outright kill it.

Lets take a simple Goblin vs a typical level 1 Wizard with CON +1 for example.

The wizard has 7 HP at level 1, the goblin does 1d6+2 damage to the wizard. That's an average of 5.5 damage. To outright kill the Wizard at max HP, the goblin needs to do 14 damage all at once to the Wizard. In order to achieve this, the Goblin must first get a critical hit. He must then get the maximum available rolls for both damage dice to finally get 14 HP worth of damage.

A goblin has a .13% chance to kill a max HP wizard. Its possible in enough cycles but its extremely rare. This is assuming an automatic hit, too. If the wizard has an AC of 15, this chance of instant death drops all the way to .007%.

The Wizard now has 1 HP at level 1. The goblin needn't get a crit to instantly kill the Wizard. In fact, there's a 16% chance that the wizard dies. Literally the roll of the dice.

As a low-level wizard, your chance of death increases by x100. If you're a wizard at 1 HP, you should probably be concerned. There's quite some other monsters you could experience that are only medium encounters that could kill you outright at level 1.

A single Bugbear, for instance, is a medium encounter. If a Wizard gets hit by their attack, they have a 23% chance to be killed outright from a full HP. From 1 HP, they have a 67% instant death chance. This is a medium encounter. The game projects your party to handle 6+ of them.
---------------

Does it get better at higher levels? No, not really. It can actually get quite a bit worse.

See, at level 1, 1HP may be roughly 15% of max HP, at higher levels, it could be as low as 1-3%.

Take a level 5 Wizard with +1 Con vs a Young Remorhaz, a CR 5 creature. The Wizard has an average of 27 HP. The Young Remorhaz does 3d10+2d6+4 damage on a hit. At maximum HP, a wizard has a 2% chance to instantly die. At 1 HP, the Wizard has a 50% chance of dying instantly.

And I haven't even gone over the chance that you'll die when you're unconscious. There's a good chance you may die without any failures because the damage they do is outright lethal from the start.



The goblin can kill an unconscious level 1 barbarian with a 3% chance. That goblin with a wizard? 83%.

The Bugbear kills a level 1 Barb with a 91% probability and a wizard with a 99.98% probability.

A Young Remorhaz kills a level 5 unconscious Barb with a 33% chance and kills a wizard with a 99.95% probability.

Skirting the line between low HP and high HP is extremely difficult. Its why I've never experienced yo-yo healing being anything other than a downward spiral in my games. The dice do not always favor the players and several PC's that play with me are often killed because they think Healing Word somehow resolves their problem.

[Dork_Forge]

I do find it a bit ironic that people complain about healing word yet even without HW to yo-yo someone and keep them alive the consequences of dying are trivial anyways thanks to Revivify which is never mentioned when talking about consequences.

There is a huge difference between yoyo healing and using Revifiy, specifically in the case of Healing word:

-Bonus action vs Action cast
-Verbal only component vs 300GP diamonds
-1st level vs 3rd level

If a party is using Revivify to frequently 'yoyo' party members, then that will correct itself in due course as they bleed their own coffers dry and proceed to be whittled down to a TPK.


I certainly get the hate of yoyo healing in terms of verisimilitude. If I wanted to address that side of things I would do something like this

Failed Death saving throws only reset to 0 after a Long Rest, successes reset once you are above 0 HP
When you drop to 0 HP you automatically suffer 1 death saving throw failure
You make a death saving throw once per minute instead of round
When taking damage you don't suffer automatic failures, instead you have disadvanatage on all future death saving throws until you die or are above 0 HP.


This makes it less likely you'd want/need to bring a downed ally up from 0 HP, in most cases you are better off finishing the fight as fast as possible and then stabilizing everyone.

Incentivising someone being left on the ground for the rest of the combat doesn't seem like fun for the person on the floor...


Can't really agree here. For one thing, Healing Word does meaningfully heal across all tiers of play, even at 20th level; being able to pick someone up from 0 is the draw, not the numerical value of HP's healed. If it healed 0.00001 HP, that would be okay, too.:smallsmile:

I distinguish yo-yoing from 'meaningful' healing as healing that provides enough hp that the PC doesn't just drop again immediately, sorry if that wasn't clear.



The first long term campaign I played, I played a Cleric. Cure Wounds was my only healing spell for the early levels, and it was a huge drain on the group. Instead of being able to pick an ally up and still contribute meaningfully I would have to spend an entire turn restoring roughly 7 hp, maybe 12 if I wanted to burn a second level slot, which was often under the amount anything but minion-level foes were hitting for. Cure Wounds healing is deliberately designed to be under enemy damage levels; which means that mathematically healing is almost always a bad idea in combat; if they are going to go down in 2 hits whether you heal them or not, it's a wasted action and a wasted spell slot, so you are better off healing reactively rather than proactively. That may not be the fun game style for you but its the one that works most of the time in 5e. There are some exceptions for higher level spells but they tend to be a massive resource expenditure that still often only allows a character to take one or two more blows; a control spell, defensive buff, or a damaging spell that removes another attacker will almost always be better. Again there are exceptions...But in my time playing, very few and far between.

What do you mean by early levels here? At level 1 and 2 then Healing Word provides meaningful amounts of healing on its own as the max hp of most characters is very low. If you found yourself 'wasting' turns by healing as an action, then perhaps you should have leveraged Spiritual Weapon? It seems a spell literally designed to fill in instances like this.

If you do not have a reasonable chance of finishing off or hindering the enemy on your turn, but the PC that keeps going down does, then meaningfully healing them is more valuable. If the initiative order means no one is losing turns with yo-yoing then there's no real difference to this, but that's a very favourable scenario to the PCs that ime, doesn't often come up.


As for the last point... I don't believe you're "allowing" someone to come close to dying. I think most people would simply be appreciative of the fact that you are literally pulling them from the brink of death on a regular basis, rather than angrily grumble that you don't have the power to heal gaping wounds within 6 seconds of their being received.

You don't need to heal every blow, but if someone is very clearly taking a lot of damage and heading towards a down (and it's clear you not healing them won't end the fight in the mean time), then yes you are letting them go down. You're prioritising other things before healing because they aren't dying quite yet. None of your text seems to take missing turns for the downed player into account, is this not a common occurrence for you or do you not consider it a notable factor?




Good design is subjective. :smallsmile: A source isn't really necessary, though. Look at Lost Mines of Phandelver, an adventure that starts at level 1. One of the first opponents you face is capable of dealing 2d8+2 damage, more on a sneak attack. Most level 1 classes are not capable of surviving that no matter how they are healed. They are, however, perfectly capable of being brought back up to 4-5 hitpoints with Healing Word. Similar scenarios exist in most official modules, but off the top of my head I've played SKT, Yawning Portal, Tomb of Annihilation, Phandelver and Dragonheist.

It is subjective, design intent isn't however, we can speculate about it, but we shouldn't claim we know it unless we can point to an interview etc, with the actual designers.

The first encounter in Lost Mines is a bunch of Goblins, it's also a pretty hard/lethal encounter on it's own for level 1 players but that's an aside. 2d8+2 (avg 11) will certainly down a lot of characters, but as Asisreo outlines below, the difference between being at 1/low hp and high/full (especially at early levels) is the rapidly increasing likelihood of instant death.


I don't see it as meaningless. Dropping to 0 causes resource expenditure, it eats up bonus actions which are still important, especially for a cleric, and most importantly of all, it means that you cannot act until you are raised; something that may not always happen depending on circumstances. If you are not attended to in time, you may die. That is enough.

I'm curious, what are you seeing a Cleric doing with their bonus actions so reliably that you also felt like you weren't contributing to ending the encounter if you were using Cure Wounds?


It is a game issue because if it is required to have a healbot to be successful, someone in the group is going to have to do it whether they want to or not. This is the game encouraging someone to be forced into a role they don't want, which in my opinion is itself bad game design.

A game doesn't force someone to act in a negative way towards another. In this scenario a healbot isn't even needed since instead you oculd just build for durability and damage prevention, something 5e has in buckets at this point.


And I simply don't agree that the Healer feat holds up beyond the earliest levels, other than as a method to pick people up from 0. It does have a very good niche in the Thief Rogue though, being able to function as a substitute for having access to healing word in a pinch.

It's hard to reply to this too specifically without knowing what you consider early levels, but think of it this way: Healer is literally the same as Second Wind in terms of max healing, except it has a higher floor and average than SW does. The important thing to consider is though that a Fighter is a D10 class with plenty of encouragement and opportunity to invest in Con. Most of the classes are not that well off in terms of hp. Let's look at level 5 since that's the break into Tier 2:

At 5th level Healer is delivering on average 12.5 hp regen.

Assuming a +1 Con:

-a d6 class (Wiz/Sorc) has 27hp, Healer amounts to a 46.3% heal

-a d8 class (Cleric, Rogue etc.) has 33hp, Healer amounts to a 37.9% heal

Assuming a +2 Con:

-a d10 class (Fighter/Ranger/Paladin) has 44hp, Healer amounts to a 28.4% heal

-the Barbarian has 50hp, Healer amounts to a 25% heal, this is multiplied by Rage resistance

That seems pretty darn good, it will taper off percentage wise from here, but it will on average deliver enough hp to negate most if not all of a hit for most of tier 2.


I wouldn't use Healer feat in combat, except maybe to stabilize at 1 hit point. It's a once per short rest resource per person. I find it better for after combat healing, even if you're not short resting soon after. It's an extra healing potion per player per short rest and can save a spell slot use. At higher level it's supplemental healing, and I'm fine with that.

Healer is substantially better than a healing potion (average 7 from a normal potion is 1.5 less at 1st level than Healer and Healer holds up pretty favourably against higher rarity potions), but it is a great feat to have on hand, in combat or between (I love it on a Battle Smith).

[Luccan]

I do find it a bit ironic that people complain about healing word yet even without HW to yo-yo someone and keep them alive the consequences of dying are trivial anyways thanks to Revivify which is never mentioned when talking about consequences.


I thought it was mentioned all the time for normally undoing permadeath only a quarter of the way into the game. In fact I think that's one of the first "no consequences" complaints I saw about 5e, that only a 3rd level spell completely prevented anyone from dying permanently ever (hyperbole, but pretty close to what the complaints implied).

Though I suppose if it's not being complained about part of it could be Revivify at least requires you to spend money and does require someone to die first, which is at least more tense than being knocked out, which can be solved by making your death saves, or a healing spell, or a DC 10 Med check.

[Witty Username]

I would say the lack of effects other than damage combined with yo-yo healing and full heal on long rest makes it very difficult for encounters to cause meaningful setbacks, exhaustion is pretty much the only thing you can use to create lasing tension, and monsters don't tend to inflict that one.

There is also the CR advice in the dmg being generally too safe, and lack of DM guidance in general on how to challenge players.

[Sorinth]

There is a huge difference between yoyo healing and using Revifiy, specifically in the case of Healing word:

-Bonus action vs Action cast
-Verbal only component vs 300GP diamonds
-1st level vs 3rd level

If a party is using Revivify to frequently 'yoyo' party members, then that will correct itself in due course as they bleed their own coffers dry and proceed to be whittled down to a TPK.

For the record I'm not suggesting people use Revivify during a fight, it's for sure something that gets done afterwards. The point I was making is that in a thread about having consequences that stick discussing healing word is irrelevant because there are already virtually no consequences to dying.



Incentivising someone being left on the ground for the rest of the combat doesn't seem like fun for the person on the floor...

So your point is what then? Every player should get unlimited uses of relentless endurance to prevent them from being knocked out of a fight?

[Sorinth]

I would say the lack of effects other than damage combined with yo-yo healing and full heal on long rest makes it very difficult for encounters to cause meaningful setbacks, exhaustion is pretty much the only thing you can use to create lasing tension, and monsters don't tend to inflict that one.

There is also the CR advice in the dmg being generally too safe, and lack of DM guidance in general on how to challenge players.

The problem with lingering effects is that realistically suffering those injuries would cause someone to retire or at least stop adventuring for a while. So if you want the plot to continue to move forward the player is actually better off creating a new PC.

Meaningful setbacks should be plot related not mechanical penalties.

[Dork_Forge]

For the record I'm not suggesting people use Revivify during a fight, it's for sure something that gets done afterwards. The point I was making is that in a thread about having consequences that stick discussing healing word is irrelevant because there are already virtually no consequences to dying.

Revivify doesn't plug that though, you need:

1) To have a PC that can have it
2) For that PC to have it prepared that day/know it to begin with
3) To have 300GP of diamonds on hand
4) To have a 3rd level slot available after a fight tough enough to kill a PC
5)For the body to be intact and gotten to within a minute

Revivify has enough conditions necessary that it doesn't become a reliable revive until well after 5th level and even then if the players are actively preparing for it. If they end up using it somewhat frequently, then the components can easily reign that in, either through depleting their cash or diamonds becoming harder to find.


So your point is what then? Every player should get unlimited uses of relentless endurance to prevent them from being knocked out of a fight?

What? No, death should be a real possibility and whatever the 'answer' to any of this is, it ideally shouldn't end up with a player sitting on the side twiddling their thumbs for whoever knows how long because the party is incentivised to leave them at 0.

[Sorinth]

What? No, death should be a real possibility and whatever the 'answer' to any of this is, it ideally shouldn't end up with a player sitting on the side twiddling their thumbs for whoever knows how long because the party is incentivised to leave them at 0.

If death is a real possibility then there will be times a player is going to sit on the side twiddling their thumbs until the combat is over (And possibly longer).

[MaxWilson]

Hey all,

I've seen a few folks on here say that they have difficulty getting consequences to stick in this edition. This is kind of confusing to me, and I'm looking for more information. Does anyone want to submit some war stories to tell me about a time when they had trouble making consequences land on their party? What happened? How did the party get out of the situation? What would you do differently next time? Did you change your DMing style at all, and how did those changes work out for you?

Thanks!

It's not so much that you can't impose real consequences, and more that you're fighting against the 5E idiom. It's like... have you ever noticed how in 5E a 7th level wizard can fall from orbit and then take a greatsword through the chest and be perfectly fine and healthy five hours later, but Exhaustion from e.g. drinking only a half gallon of water for two days in a row completely debilitates you and takes 72 hours to recover from? It feels really out of place.

[Galithar]

Ditto. The HP race never amounts to more than a side show. Consequences involve choices.

Done properly HP loss can facilitate the need to make a choice. If it's pure damage in one go, it changes nothing. But when healing becomes more difficult it can become a "do we push on and risk TPK or do we attempt to negotiate or maybe even withdraw completely and accept a loss"

As long as it's not the ONLY consequence I find it very effective in adding another dimension. The less combat heavy the game the less this effects things. So if your style is already heavily narrative based I can agree that it won't impact decision making much.

[MaxWilson]

Done properly HP loss can facilitate the need to make a choice. If it's pure damage in one go, it changes nothing. But when healing becomes more difficult it can become a "do we push on and risk TPK or do we attempt to negotiate or maybe even withdraw completely and accept a loss"

As long as it's not the ONLY consequence I find it very effective in adding another dimension. The less combat heavy the game the less this effects things. So if your style is already heavily narrative based I can agree that it won't impact decision making much.

To illustrate this point, let's look at Asisreo's list from earlier:


Agreed. When I think of consequences in a TTRPG, I think of overarching story consequences. Being captured, losing position, being routed, losing a hostage, running out of time.

Notice which of these are actually HP loss in disguise: in a game without danger of death (i.e. HP loss or the equivalent), there would be no reason to surrender instead of fighting to the death, no danger of losing hostages, and no being routed.

Now, you can certainly run a game where non-violent consequences are more important to the story: flunking a test, breaking up with a girlfriend/boyfriend, losing custody of your children, not getting a promotion at work, losing an important customer, having your parents reject you emotionally. This can work great in GURPS or DramaSystem, and maybe FATE (I'm not sure, haven't really played it just read the rules). But D&D is a game you play when you want to tell stories about violence and potential violence, and if death isn't on the table as a potential failure condition for somebody in the adventure, I don't know why you'd want to run that adventure in 5E or any version of D&D.

[stoutstien]

I think there might be some confusion on my point about HP loss and consequences.

Losing HP is the tension. This leads to a potentially meaningful decision on how to address it which usually means spending some form of resource, be it a spell slot or time. The outcome of that decision contains consequences. They could be as minor as some exp potentially missed or as major as complete campaign failure and the end of that particular game. Doesn't really matter what you call all three parts. They could just as well be named: question, answer, outcome or build up, climax, conclusion.

Players/characters need to be aware of all three parts on some level for it to function. The tension only works if there is going to be a consequence at the end and consequences only work if they had a say in the outcome and they had a reason to make a decision I the first place. The most common problem I see is that DMs tend to skip over the middle. Most of the complaints players have in the game that isn't system related usually falls here.

[Galithar]

To illustrate this point, let's look at Asisreo's list from earlier:



Notice which of these are actually HP loss in disguise: in a game without danger of death (i.e. HP loss or the equivalent), there would be no reason to surrender instead of fighting to the death, no danger of losing hostages, and no being routed.

Now, you can certainly run a game where non-violent consequences are more important to the story: flunking a test, breaking up with a girlfriend/boyfriend, losing custody of your children, not getting a promotion at work, losing an important customer, having your parents reject you emotionally. This can work great in GURPS or DramaSystem, and maybe FATE (I'm not sure, haven't really played it just read the rules). But D&D is a game you play when you want to tell stories about violence and potential violence, and if death isn't on the table as a potential failure condition for somebody in the adventure, I don't know why you'd want to run that adventure in 5E or any version of D&D.

Yes! This is exactly what I was talking about. The HP loss isn't the consequence, it's the driving factor that leads to the consequence. Having a half health character isn't much of a consequence, but as Asisreo said in your quote losing a hostage because you can't afford the risk of pressing on until you heal is.

I have actually been thinking a lot about alternatives to recovery to prompt these decisions without having to throw constant deadly threats at my players. I'll post them in a separate thread later (and add a link here if I remember) because they are spurred on by this thread, as well as the Gritty Realism thread going right now, and might interest some of you.

My alternate rest concept thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?623720-A-variant-to-Gritty-realism-and-making-HP-damage-stick)

[jojosskul]

Revivify doesn't plug that though, you need:

1) To have a PC that can have it
2) For that PC to have it prepared that day/know it to begin with
3) To have 300GP of diamonds on hand
4) To have a 3rd level slot available after a fight tough enough to kill a PC
5)For the body to be intact and gotten to within a minute

Revivify has enough conditions necessary that it doesn't become a reliable revive until well after 5th level and even then if the players are actively preparing for it. If they end up using it somewhat frequently, then the components can easily reign that in, either through depleting their cash or diamonds becoming harder to find.



A nice work around for a lot of those issues with revivify is to have someone with Gentle Repose prepared and have them cast it NOT as a ritual. Saves you lugging around 300 gp diamonds, keeps you nice and fresh for 10 days, and even lets you possibly have an NPC cast Revivify once you get back to town instead. Still have to use the 300 gp diamond eventually of course, but it's a good backup plan.

You then have the fun issue of body transport, but honestly that adds a layer of consequences on it's own. And much less opportunity cost with only a second level slot, and odds are you have a Wizard, Cleric, or Paladin in the average adventuring party.

Also is the needing two copper pieces to place over the eyes that MUST stay there for the duration part of the normal spell or just part of the wiki I happen to have access to at work? Because that's some super gentle body moving you'll need to do or OOPS, your friend is dead dead.

[JackPhoenix]

The problem with lingering effects is that realistically suffering those injuries would cause someone to retire or at least stop adventuring for a while. So if you want the plot to continue to move forward the player is actually better off creating a new PC.

Meaningful setbacks should be plot related not mechanical penalties.

Agreed on both accounts. In the game I currently run, the character who lost a leg in an incident involving a fire breathing dragon and a keg full of black powder was left behind to recover while the rest of the party (and a replacement temporary character for the player of the injured PC) continued on an important mission.


If death is a real possibility then there will be times a player is going to sit on the side twiddling their thumbs until the combat is over (And possibly longer).

Considering how popular Critical Role and similar are, there's apparently plenty of people who don't consider watching/listening other people play a waste of time.


Also is the needing two copper pieces to place over the eyes that MUST stay there for the duration part of the normal spell or just part of the wiki I happen to have access to at work? Because that's some super gentle body moving you'll need to do or OOPS, your friend is dead dead.

That's part of the spell's description. I suspect the former corpse won't be happy about the salt in their eyes either after being revived.

[Galithar]

Also is the needing two copper pieces to place over the eyes that MUST stay there for the duration part of the normal spell or just part of the wiki I happen to have access to at work? Because that's some super gentle body moving you'll need to do or OOPS, your friend is dead dead.

I would think it would be pretty simple to wrap a bandage around the head to ensure they can't move even if you roll the body. Anyone who knows the spell should be aware of the importance of maintaining their placement.

[Willie the Duck]

I do find it a bit ironic that people complain about healing word yet even without HW to yo-yo someone and keep them alive the consequences of dying are trivial anyways thanks to Revivify which is never mentioned when talking about consequences.
I guess I didn't mention Revivify specifically, but I touched on the basic theme of low-consequence rezing already:

I played a lot of basic-classic, so being raised with just a week downtime or similar is actually pretty familiar, but if you were used to losing a point of Con or a level (or 25,000 gp in the edition where gold mattered most) for coming back from the dead, this too can seem like consequence-free play.

[jojosskul]

I would think it would be pretty simple to wrap a bandage around the head to ensure they can't move even if you roll the body. Anyone who knows the spell should be aware of the importance of maintaining their placement.

True, but still an extra thing your party needs to look out for. I also like it because it makes resurrecting your friend more of a quest. Maybe give the player whose character is dead a sidekick to play for the journey. If you're in a city based campaign it's not a big deal, but say you're deep into a dungeon and days away from civilization? Sounds like a fun adventure to me.

[Asisreo1]

To illustrate this point, let's look at Asisreo's list from earlier:



Notice which of these are actually HP loss in disguise: in a game without danger of death (i.e. HP loss or the equivalent), there would be no reason to surrender instead of fighting to the death, no danger of losing hostages, and no being routed.

Not necessarily. Without the need to self-preserve, it may feel like these consequences should never crop up but despite not being in danger of actual death, the party can still fail significantly through other means.

If the party becomes paralyzed/petrified/unconscious, the enemy could easily tie them up without any HP loss. Hostages being lost need not even occur during combat since just being caught infiltrating a lair could potentially end in your target's death. And being routed isn't about losing HP, its about being overwhelmed and losing whatever helps you fight. That could easily be HP, but it could also be the soldiers under your platoon or the general leading the fight. Yes, death is the centerpiece, but not the PC's death.

I do think HP consequences can be effective if done right, but too many DM's lean into it far too heavily.

[Dork_Forge]

Considering how popular Critical Role and similar are, there's apparently plenty of people who don't consider watching/listening other people play a waste of time.


There's a difference between choosing to consume D&D as entertainment in show/podcast form and choosing to play D&D and having to spend a chunk of your limited free time sitting there not playing, because your character happened to be the one to go down (in the proposed rule). I saw this as someone that enjoys listening to D&D liveplays, but everyon'es different I guess.

[Pex]

Healer is substantially better than a healing potion (average 7 from a normal potion is 1.5 less at 1st level than Healer and Healer holds up pretty favourably against higher rarity potions), but it is a great feat to have on hand, in combat or between (I love it on a Battle Smith).

Funny you should mention that. I have it for my Battle Smith. He likes to fix things, including people. He's also a warforged and refers himself as a living magic item.

[KorvinStarmast]

When someone mentions consequences in an RPG, HP attrition is about the last thing I think off. Check.

Ditto. The HP race never amounts to more than a side show. Consequences involve choices. Yep,

Not everything in the game has to be reflected in the mechanics to count. There's a fiction layer, to which the mechanics are just a UI. QFT.

People don't like spending their turns in combat doing nothing but rolling death saves. Apparently, at least one poster in this thread does not believe that. :smallconfused:

Revivify doesn't plug that though, you need:

1) To have a PC that can have it
2) For that PC to have it prepared that day/know it to begin with
3) To have 300GP of diamonds on hand
4) To have a 3rd level slot available after a fight tough enough to kill a PC
5)For the body to be intact and gotten to within a minute
My Celestial lock has had that spell since 5th. She invested much of her gold into two diamonds of appropriate cost/value. She's had to use it once (a fight during level 7). It was worth the prep.
No, death should be a real possibility and whatever the 'answer' to any of this is, it ideally shouldn't end up with a player sitting on the side twiddling their thumbs for whoever knows how long because the party is incentivised to leave them at 0. I think I agree, but I am not sure since you seem to have mixed 0 HP and PC death into the same thought. :smallconfused:

[Dork_Forge]

Funny you should mention that. I have it for my Battle Smith. He likes to fix things, including people. He's also a warforged and refers himself as a living magic item.

That sounds really cool!

I liked doling out Aid before combat and then patching people up between, it was a really great support combo that left me with plenty of slots left for control or emergancy Cure Wounds.



My Celestial lock has had that spell since 5th. She invested much of her gold into two diamonds of appropriate cost/value. She's had to use it once (a fight during level 7). It was worth the prep.

Revivify is certainly a valuable spell, the context though is about it invalidating death or being used as a yo-yo tactic. I don't think it fits into that well because of how many factors have to line up, so it's not as abuseable/disruptive on a repeating basis imo like some believe.

The only time it's seen use in my longer campaign is when the Paladin used it to bring back a guard that the Polymorphed Bard accidentally killed (they were trying to avoid lethality in their escape).


I think I agree, but I am not sure since you seem to have mixed 0 HP and PC death into the same thought. :smallconfused:

To clarify this was about a proposed set of changes that would mean that death saves were made once per minute (not round), damage didn't inflict failed saves etc. Changes that incentivise a PC to be left dying on the floor for the entire combat instead of being stabilised or healed.

-I personally didn't like this as it would leave a player out of the game for a significant period of time (we all have limited time and come to the 'table' to play), similar to that PC dying

-Would make death even less likely to occur, it's not exactly easy to die in 5e if you're level 4 and up. I prefer death be a real threat at all times to make choices have weight

-Minimises the role of healing further

-Entirely breaks verimilitude for me, since imo a party that trust each other with their lives wouldn't just leave their comrad dying for an undeterminate amount of time. It's purely gamist to do that

[KorvinStarmast]

That sounds really cool!

I liked doling out Aid before combat and then patching people up between, it was a really great support combo that left me with plenty of slots left for control or emergancy Cure Wounds. Hmmm, vHuman Alchemist Artificer with Healer Feat as the support. Something to think about if I am ever in an Eberron setting.

From what I have seen of the artificer artillerist, that protector cannon is a fine HP drain preventer ... wonder how well that stands up at double digit levels.

[Dork_Forge]

Hmmm, vHuman Alchemist Artificer with Healer Feat as the support. Something to think about if I am ever in an Eberron setting.

From what I have seen of the artificer artillerist, that protector cannon is a fine HP drain preventer ... wonder how well that stands up at double digit levels.

You type faster than me! I edited in a reply to you in my previous post, sorry I didn't see you quote me when I initially posted!

I think the Alchemist is underrated as a healer and support because it isn't as flashy. You can make an Alchemist base character that heals for pretty substantial numbers.

I've not seen an Artillerist in higher level play, but I'd assume it does taper off since it doesn't really scale outside of Int mod. I think the new leader in this regard is the Twilight Cleric and their temp hp CD option.

I have a Glamour Bard in a game I run (the party is level 12) and him being able to dole out 11 temp hp as a bonus action, at significant range, has increased the durability of the party to pretty crazy levels epsecilaly since his party members are a Paladin that is one fat sack of hp and a Barbarian/Rogue combo that uses both Bear resistances with Uncanny Dodge to get the most out of those temp hp.

[stoutstien]

Hmmm, vHuman Alchemist Artificer with Healer Feat as the support. Something to think about if I am ever in an Eberron setting.

From what I have seen of the artificer artillerist, that protector cannon is a fine HP drain preventer ... wonder how well that stands up at double digit levels.

In the group I have running a 5 man all artificer party the protector cannon is holding up fairly well in the lv +15 range. Mind you, artificer are perfect for this style mitigation due to being being hearty in nature. Warding bond helps keep the damage spread out as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

In the group I have running a 5 man all artificer party the protector cannon is holding up fairly well in the lv +15 range. Mind you, artificer are perfect for this style mitigation due to being being hearty in nature. Warding bond helps keep the damage spread out as well. Thank you! :smallsmile: I am not sure if our campaign will get past 11 or 12, so I am glad to see that our artificer won't feel short changed with the cannon.

[Sparky McDibben]

Well, this thread has been eye-opening. I'm going to take some of the stuff I saw here and cogitate for a bit, but I might have another post come out later on consequences.

[Tanarii]

What about changing Healing Word to use an action, and Cure Wounds to use a Bonus Action?

Or if you feel the action type is more integral to the spell name (and spell lists and larger healing), change Healing Word to range touch, and give Cure Wounds range.

Basically, line up the easier action with the shorter range.

[Dork_Forge]

What about changing Healing Word to use an action, and Cure Wounds to use a Bonus Action?

Or if you feel the action type is more integral to the spell name (and spell lists and larger healing), change Healing Word to range touch, and give Cure Wounds range.

Basically, line up the easier action with the shorter range.

This would be a good patch, it's the comination of range and bonus action that really solidifies HW as pop up healing, with no inherent risk to the caster.

[Pex]

This would be a good patch, it's the comination of range and bonus action that really solidifies HW as pop up healing, with no inherent risk to the caster.

What you call a bug I call a feature. I like a person can heal and do something else. I like the person doing the healing can remain out of harm's way. I like a PC who drops can still get to play in the combat when someone heals them. It's a game. It doesn't have to be all serious "realistic".

[Gizmogidget]

It is not a bug, it is a feature. Please remember who this game was meant to include: new players. It isn't fun to lie there dead while the fight is going on. It is fun to have a chance to get back up and get back into play, though one is still in danger.

Those of you against yo yo healing: it's a style issue, and a matter of taste.
At some tables, this level of realism/lethality is welcome (and it means that the party needs to get enemies away from fallen team mates, which is a good 'team work' thing to emphasize.

At other tables, it is not welcome to have an unconscious player sit there helplessly while an monster kills them.

Just make sure that you know your players.

I got to a 'one failed death save away from PC death' at level 13 thanks to being hit while down by a frost giant during a major fight in the Giants Trinity (TFtYP) adventure.
Tense moment, to be sure.

Everything said here is exactly how I think of the game. I played D&D 5e to feel powerful and because it is newbie friendly. The default ruleset accomplishes those objectives perfectly imho.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What you call a bug I call a feature. I like a person can heal and do something else. I like the person doing the healing can remain out of harm's way. I like a PC who drops can still get to play in the combat when someone heals them. It's a game. It doesn't have to be all serious "realistic".

I agree. Dropping to 0 isn't entirely in your control, even using good tactics. And as DMs decide to go with the One Big Monster/One Big Fight paradigm, this becomes especially true. A CR = Level + 3 monster can, on a decent round, take a full-health d8 HD character to 0 without them getting a chance to respond. If that means you're down for the rest of the fight (which may take 30 minutes to an hour), that sucks IMO.

[Dork_Forge]

What you call a bug I call a feature. I like a person can heal and do something else. I like the person doing the healing can remain out of harm's way. I like a PC who drops can still get to play in the combat when someone heals them. It's a game. It doesn't have to be all serious "realistic".

I actually agree with you, I like all of those things, I just don't like when they're all smushed together in a level 1 spell. I mean there's multiple class features to allow bonus action ranged healing, AOE healing, multi target healing, it's not like debuffing Healing Word makes those things impossible and if it's not causing any problems then there's no need to bother patching it to begin with.

If the DM feels there's no real tension or threat largely because of how things work RAW, then they can patch away.

[Pex]

I actually agree with you, I like all of those things, I just don't like when they're all smushed together in a level 1 spell. I mean there's multiple class features to allow bonus action ranged healing, AOE healing, multi target healing, it's not like debuffing Healing Word makes those things impossible and if it's not causing any problems then there's no need to bother patching it to begin with.

If the DM feels there's no real tension or threat largely because of how things work RAW, then they can patch away.

A level one spell doesn't mean it must be weak. At low level it uses up a spell slot you don't have many of to lessen the lethality to keep players interested in the game. At high level it means you aren't using one of your big gun spells that round, but more than keeping the PC alive is to get back his turn's worth of actions because you need it to defeat the bad guys. That's reasonable for a level 1 spell.

Strawmanning for emphasis: However uberpowerful a person thinks spellcasters are, they are allowed to be of power. A first level spell being a good spell to cast is not out of the question.

[Tanarii]

A level one spell doesn't mean it must be weak.

The problem is Healing Word is significantly more powerful than Cure Wounds. Switching the Ranges makes them far more on par. And it makes choosing one or the other an interesting choice, as opposed to an automatic decision. IMX folks always choose Healing Word if they have access to both, with a possible exception of life clerics.

[Dork_Forge]

The problem is Healing Word is significantly more powerful than Cure Wounds. Switching the Ranges makes them far more on par. And it makes choosing one or the other an interesting choice, as opposed to an automatic decision. IMX folks always choose Healing Word if they have access to both, with a possible exception of life clerics.

This sums it up nicely, the disparity is too large between them, a d8 vs a d4 doesn't touch the range and action economy benefits. Level one spells can be powerful and useful, but Healing Word as is is just too much rolled into one and since it's a first level spell, as the levels go up and it's relative cost decreases it's impact on the game actually increases.

[Pex]

The problem is Healing Word is significantly more powerful than Cure Wounds. Switching the Ranges makes them far more on par. And it makes choosing one or the other an interesting choice, as opposed to an automatic decision. IMX folks always choose Healing Word if they have access to both, with a possible exception of life clerics.

I'd rather boost Cure Wounds then. :smallwink:

I'm fine with Healing Word being in combat healing and Cure Wounds being out of combat healing as a matter of strategy. Some players like being healers so will go with Cure Wounds for the larger healing in combat and be happy spending the Action to do so.

[Tanarii]

I'd rather boost Cure Wounds then. :smallwink:
*blinks* Okay then. I guess that works. Never would have occured to me.

[Asisreo1]

The problem is Healing Word is significantly more powerful than Cure Wounds. Switching the Ranges makes them far more on par. And it makes choosing one or the other an interesting choice, as opposed to an automatic decision. IMX folks always choose Healing Word if they have access to both, with a possible exception of life clerics.
Healing Word is only a superior option when you're trying to heal a downed enemy within combat or need to heal from a distance. These opportunities appear quite frequently, especially at lower levels where its relevant, but its not a good enough analysis to take only the strengths of one spell and the lack of them as only weakness in the other spell.

Cure Wounds is objectively more efficient out of combat. At low levels, spell slot efficiency can be the difference between life and death. You only get 2-3 of them and if you can wait until after combat to heal with them, you'll get that little bit of extra health.

Don't get me wrong, I think Healing Word is definitely a better pick overall for a bard that has limited spells known. Even a cleric if they have a need for an extra prepared spell.

However, the biggest strength of Cure Wounds is its availability.

Out of the 5 classes with healing, only 2 of them have native access to Healing Word. The other classes don't get a say about which one is better or not. Either take Cure Wounds for the clutch moments or don't take any healing. If you asked me which classes should have a superior healing option for the same level, I'd probably say the cleric and bard. Maybe I'd say Druid too but the aforementioned classes need it more.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Hey all,

I've seen a few folks on here say that they have difficulty getting consequences to stick in this edition. This is kind of confusing to me, and I'm looking for more information. Does anyone want to submit some war stories to tell me about a time when they had trouble making consequences land on their party? What happened? How did the party get out of the situation? What would you do differently next time? Did you change your DMing style at all, and how did those changes work out for you?

Thanks!

Uh, I don't have problems making consequences stick to my parties. This is entirely a function of the GM.

I have lots of "war stories" about my players dealing with the consequences of their actions [typically a snowball effect of bad decisions resulting in bad situations that beget more bad descisions], but not many of the inverse.



My only real "war story" about consequences failing to stick is entirely a product of our GM's style [and is ongoing].
In a current game I play in, one player plays an "edgy" character and revels in having his character engage in generally unacceptable behavior. He doesn't eat with a fork and a knife and just grabs the whole serving tray of meat as "his plate" and pretends it's "his culture" when it manifestly isn't and every other dragonborn we've met has normal manners. He's antisocial, doesn't treat people with respect, and really just is just the player reveling in being edgy and engaging in a consistent pattern of behavior that would get him shunned, reprimanded, kicked out, or otherwise not tolerated if the player did it in real life. The worst part is, that the player expects to get away with it, and because the GM kind of lacks the either the confidence, will, or storytelling plan to have any sort of negative consequences that one would reasonably expect to happen to said character for his behavior, even minor ones for minor things like not using his fork and knife,
On top of that, the character has a sister the player also created as an NPC who revels in cruelty without purpose "for the lulz" and is practically fetishized for just "screwing people over" and getting away with it. She's become an international criminal, but because I think the GM is afraid to upset the player, two literal countries that she basically committed an act of terror to try to instigate a war between who know she did it weren't even trying to do anything about her except say "well, she's not allowed in". She's not even like hiding out in Tora Bora or making herself scarce or using false identities or anything, and walks freely in countries that are firm allies of the countries she attacked.

Another player and I are fed up with this pattern of behavior. While we technically have a problem with the player reveling in the ability to do and get away with a pattern of unacceptable behavior because he simply wants to oppose societal norms in a safe place, we would prefer a response take the form of realistic consequences happening to the character rather than just having a talk. Having a talk won't have the desired effect because that's basically just like us being his mom having a talk with him about being polite. We don't really care if he changes his behavior, we care about his lack of consequences for such behavior. We want to have demonstrated to him that characters in game won't tolerate unacceptable behavior any more than in real life.

So we've basically been pressuring the GM to have the expected consequences happen. We've told the GM our consequence-based grievance out of game, and for in-character stuff we tipped off and are guiding one of the governments to a location where he's arranged to meet his sister so they can send their SEAL team 6, and are already taking steps and measures to assist their agents [discreetly IRL, so the player doesn't get angry] in taking her and seeing that she stands trial [and is probably executed. That's what happens when you commit a major act of international terror].

[Tanarii]

Healing Word is only a superior option when you're trying to heal a downed enemy within combat or need to heal from a distance. These opportunities appear quite frequently, especially at lower levels where its relevant, but its not a good enough analysis to take only the strengths of one spell and the lack of them as only weakness in the other spell.

Cure Wounds is objectively more efficient out of combat. At low levels, spell slot efficiency can be the difference between life and death. You only get 2-3 of them and if you can wait until after combat to heal with them, you'll get that little bit of extra health.My (revised) suggested change wouldn't affect Cure Wounds out of combat healing capability. It would balance the two for combat healing. Either an action (and V/S casting, meaning you need a free hand) for a ranged bigger heal, or a bonus action V-only touch smaller heal.


Out of the 5 classes with healing, only 2 of them have native access to Healing Word.Bards, Clerics and Druids all have access to both. Only the half-casters are limited to Cure Wounds only.

[Dork_Forge]

Bards, Clerics and Druids all have access to both. Only the half-casters are limited to Cure Wounds only.

Worth noting that whilst the Artificer only gets Cure Wounds, the Alchemist gets Healing Word.

[Tanarii]

Worth noting that whilst the Artificer only gets Cure Wounds, the Alchemist gets Healing Word.
Sure. But they're not a real class. :smallamused:
(I don't think about them because they weren't a core class until Tashas)

[Pex]

*blinks* Okay then. I guess that works. Never would have occured to me.

Common DM thinking, no "tyrant" offense intended :smallyuk:. DMs tend to default to nerfing what they think is powerful instead of boosting what they find lacking. Happens often in the warrior/spellcaster debates.

[Darzil]

The good thing about Healing Word, ignoring balance considerations, is it is a spell to get a player involved (as their character is no longer out of the game), without taking an action away from the player whose character is healing.

[Dork_Forge]

The good thing about Healing Word, ignoring balance considerations, is it is a spell to get a player involved (as their character is no longer out of the game), without taking an action away from the player whose character is healing.

Maybe this is something brought over from older editions? Why would a player consider healing to be a wasted action to begin with when it's adding a particularly meaningful effect?

I've only played 5e so genuinely curious!

[Darzil]

Maybe this is something brought over from older editions? Why would a player consider healing to be a wasted action to begin with when it's adding a particularly meaningful effect?
Well, I've only played 1e and 5e, so I cannot comment extensively.

But there is a long tradition in many places (rpg's, mmos, etc) that being the healer means that you spend all your time casting "increase hp" spells on other characters rather than doing anything interesting.

Now, clearly some people will like that, but you need one in every group who does, so giving them other things they can do is usually preferred.

[stoutstien]

Maybe this is something brought over from older editions? Why would a player consider healing to be a wasted action to begin with when it's adding a particularly meaningful effect?

I've only played 5e so genuinely curious!

Depends on when that action is taking place. If you're healing somebody who is making death saving throws the actions probably worth it. Healing that same Target when there are 50% health is not clearly a practical choice. you have to weigh the possibilities of them losing their action due to falling to zero against your own action and a spell slot.
The more actions in play the harder it gets to have a clear picture. That meaningful effect can lose its allure quite easily in fairly common very circumstances.

There is now a huge array of bonus action or no action healing that are largely decoupled from spell casting which is a double win for the users. Your standard celestial warlock can keep a party on their feet while simultaneously being a warlock.

[Tanarii]

But there is a long tradition in many places (rpg's, mmos, etc) that being the healer means that you spend all your time casting "increase hp" spells on other characters rather than doing anything interesting.
Having played a healer in a number of MMOs, I can tell you that trying to keep folks alive is incredibly difficult and challenging, and requires constant vigilance, strategic timing, and fast reflexes ... all while watching out for threats to yourself. It's never lacked "interesting".

Of course, D&D lacks both the real time element, and frequently the number of other allied characters you have to think about simultaneously.

[Dork_Forge]

Well, I've only played 1e and 5e, so I cannot comment extensively.

But there is a long tradition in many places (rpg's, mmos, etc) that being the healer means that you spend all your time casting "increase hp" spells on other characters rather than doing anything interesting.

Now, clearly some people will like that, but you need one in every group who does, so giving them other things they can do is usually preferred.


Depends on when that action is taking place. If you're healing somebody who is making death saving throws the actions probably worth it. Healing that same Target when there are 50% health is not clearly a practical choice. you have to weigh the possibilities of them losing their action due to falling to zero against your own action and a spell slot.
The more actions in play the harder it gets to have a clear picture. That meaningful effect can lose its allure quite easily in fairly common very circumstances.

There is now a huge array of bonus action or no action healing that are largely decoupled from spell casting which is a double win for the users. Your standard celestial warlock can keep a party on their feet while simultaneously being a warlock.

Ahh, I can see how top up healing when the PC isn't actually in danger would be dissatisfying, though I'd argue people doing that are misunderstanding how D&D works in comparison to other games.

I'm an advocate of proactive healing, but if there's no real chance someone will go down this round then you may as well just hold off. Clerics probably sit here the best with Spritual Weapon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Having played a healer in a number of MMOs, I can tell you that trying to keep folks alive is incredibly difficult and challenging, and requires constant vigilance, strategic timing, and fast reflexes ... all while watching out for threats to yourself. It's never lacked "interesting".

Of course, D&D lacks both the real time element, and frequently the number of other allied characters you have to think about simultaneously.

Although the dancing health bars you see even with your eyes closed after a raid...

Interestingly, at least 1 MMO has the optimal strategy for healers be to learn to heal as little as possible.


FFXIV's incoming damage is generally of one of three types:
* tankbusters that need active mitigation but only blast the tank and are telegraphed in advance.
* infrequent raid/party-wide damage, usually telegraphed and with plenty of time between hits to heal up.
* avoidable mechanics. Many of which either don't do tons of damage but leave damage down/vulnerability up debuffs (which often stack) OR are auto-dead/auto-wipe effects if you fail them. These are telegraphed or predictable enough that the main difficulty of the fight is learning the patterns and being able to be in the right place at the right time.

There's the boss's auto-attacks, but those don't hurt much. And healers have lots of off-gcd (basically bonus action) heals. Powerful ones, too. So if you're geared enough and the party is avoiding the mechanics, you generally only need to heal occasionally. The rest of the time you're spamming your 2 damage abilities (one nuke spell, one DoT spell) and using the utility effects your job has. A "world-class" healer generally only casts a few on-gcd heals per raid, maybe 10%.

-------------
One thing about healing in D&D is that it's actually more efficient than the raw numbers look. Because heals don't miss/don't have saves. If the enemy hits 60% of the time, an action spent healing 10 HP negated an action dealing 16.67 damage. So for the first few levels, healing 7 (1d8+3) as a bonus action is actually keeping up with the damage of a CR 1 creature. It falls off vs higher CRs, but not as tremendously as expected.

And the ideal of pop-up healing only really happens if the healer goes after the monster that knocked down the PC but before the downed PC goes. Otherwise you're losing an entire turn's worth of actions.

So as-designed (lots of high-number/low-threat enemies), proactive healing isn't so bad. Against big solo monsters it kinda sucks, but well, so do a lot of other strategies.

[Dork_Forge]

One thing about healing in D&D is that it's actually more efficient than the raw numbers look. Because heals don't miss/don't have saves. If the enemy hits 60% of the time, an action spent healing 10 HP negated an action dealing 16.67 damage. So for the first few levels, healing 7 (1d8+3) as a bonus action is actually keeping up with the damage of a CR 1 creature. It falls off vs higher CRs, but not as tremendously as expected.

And the ideal of pop-up healing only really happens if the healer goes after the monster that knocked down the PC but before the downed PC goes. Otherwise you're losing an entire turn's worth of actions.

So as-designed (lots of high-number/low-threat enemies), proactive healing isn't so bad. Against big solo monsters it kinda sucks, but well, so do a lot of other strategies.

A good summary, the auto success of heals is often not mentioned at all. On the bolded though I jsut want to throw out there that proactive healing may not be enough to keep someone up (though if you're actually investing in healing this doens't have to be the case), but it can help swerve you away from instadeath. This becomes less of an issue the higher level you go, but instadeath on characters can be a real issue when they get down to low hp before they take the big hit.

[Pex]

Maybe this is something brought over from older editions? Why would a player consider healing to be a wasted action to begin with when it's adding a particularly meaningful effect?

I've only played 5e so genuinely curious!


Well, I've only played 1e and 5e, so I cannot comment extensively.

But there is a long tradition in many places (rpg's, mmos, etc) that being the healer means that you spend all your time casting "increase hp" spells on other characters rather than doing anything interesting.

Now, clearly some people will like that, but you need one in every group who does, so giving them other things they can do is usually preferred.

Very much this. I don't mind the Healer role, but I want to be able to do other stuff too. I still remember in my 2E days a player getting very upset when I played a cleric and had cast spells that were not Cure Light Wounds. We were in college and he literally yelled at me about it the next day in the Student Union. A couple of years later he was starting up a game and he recruited a player when I happened to be in the room. The recruit said he would play a cleric, and he literally said "Clerics are only good for healing."

They made healing easier to manage in 3E by allowing clerics to cast Cure Wounds spells spontaneously so they could prepare the fun spells they want but still heal if need be. However, clerics were still the healing class. Pathfinder improved it with Channeling Energy which allows healing multiple PCs at a time at range, and you don't use up spell slots. Still, it was the cleric who healed though the oracle could as well. Life Oracle was an expert.

4E allowed for anyone to heal themselves by spending Healing Surges - HD in 5E terminology.

5E spread the healing around. The cleric can still heal but is not the only one. Other classes can heal just as well in their own way, and everyone can heal themselves during rests. That's why I think long rest heals all wounds, so no one has to be the Healer. Healing is to let you keep going during the adventuring day, not a role tax a player must play so everyone else can do what they want. Healing Word is a facilitator. If it's too good then let it be too good. It's the Fireball of 1st level spells, overpowered on purpose to help make playing the game fun forget about balance or realism.

[stoutstien]

Very much this. I don't mind the Healer role, but I want to be able to do other stuff too. I still remember in my 2E days a player getting very upset when I played a cleric and had cast spells that were not Cure Light Wounds. We were in college and he literally yelled at me about it the next day in the Student Union. A couple of years later he was starting up a game and he recruited a player when I happened to be in the room. The recruit said he would play a cleric, and he literally said "Clerics are only good for healing."

They made healing easier to manage in 3E by allowing clerics to cast Cure Wounds spells spontaneously so they could prepare the fun spells they want but still heal if need be. However, clerics were still the healing class. Pathfinder improved it with Channeling Energy which allows healing multiple PCs at a time at range, and you don't use up spell slots. Still, it was the cleric who healed though the oracle could as well. Life Oracle was an expert.

4E allowed for anyone to heal themselves by spending Healing Surges - HD in 5E terminology.

5E spread the healing around. The cleric can still heal but is not the only one. Other classes can heal just as well in their own way, and everyone can heal themselves during rests. That's why I think long rest heals all wounds, so no one has to be the Healer. Healing is to let you keep going during the adventuring day, not a role tax a player must play so everyone else can do what they want. Healing Word is a facilitator. If it's too good then let it be too good. It's the Fireball of 1st level spells, overpowered on purpose to help make playing the game fun forget about balance or realism.

Wait. you played 3e where the healer wasn't just a stack of wands?

[noob]

Wait. you played 3e where the healer wasn't just a stack of wands?

At level 1 before you get your first few looting then you probably do not have lesser vigour wands.
Also if there is no magic market you might find yourself with a gm stingy on healing items.

[stoutstien]

At level 1 before you get your first few looting then you probably do not have lesser vigour wands.
Also if there is no magic market you might find yourself with a gm stingy on healing items.

A DM could also have partially charged wands available on the local market. The fact the the wands exist at all and are part of the core rules is enough to groan when trying rationalize how healing works in the game.

[noob]

A DM could also have partially charged wands available on the local market. The fact the the wands exist at all and are part of the core rules is enough to groan when trying rationalize how healing works in the game.

It is simple: at some point to create the wand someone knowing the healing spell had to spend roughly 8 hours and some of themselves to make the healing item(and gold).
That cost is rather steep so it would make sense in terms of total resources to start by using resources that renews each day before starting to make wands.
Unless you are a cleric that is adventuring with your friends in which case you probably want to be able to cast all your cool spells and at that point healing items are the solution.
So healing items are mostly adventurers consumed which allows their costs to potentially raise to high values(and it makes the production of such mostly done in function of the number of adventurers).

[stoutstien]

It is simple: at some point to create the wand someone knowing the healing spell had to spend roughly 8 hours and some of themselves to make the healing item(and gold).
That cost is rather steep so it would make sense in terms of total resources to start by using resources that renews each day before starting to make wands.
Unless you are a cleric that is adventuring with your friends in which case you probably want to be able to cast all your cool spells and at that point healing items are the solution.
So healing items are mostly adventurers consumed which allows their costs to potentially raise to high values.

Somewhere laying around my house I have a three-ring binder full of all the necessary paperwork for my 3.5 artificer that dived headlong onto crafting. I should probably move it to an Excel spreadsheet. It was like playing Math: the game.