I have read more and participated in some threads about healing in 5e. The general consensus is that healing in 5e is not worth the spells (or spell slots). It is better to use spells to end combat quickly. The meager healing a PC is likely to achieve is quite likely to be undone on the next round when the first Hit is scored.
From these theses a few smaller "discussions" arise such as the discussion over whether Healing Word is a better spell than Cure Light Wounds. The merits of H-W rest on it being a bonus action while C-W heals more HP.
1) Would healing in 5e be improved by allowing all healing spells to be Bonus Action Spells? I recognize this almost makes H-W irrelevant, except that it also has a range, but lets agree to set that aside for now.
2) Would 5e be irreparably "broken" if this happened?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
1.) turning almost anything from an action to a bonus action improves the thing. What you're asking is "would this be a good idea?", and the answer is unfortunately no.
2.) Yes, actually. Healing was deliberately reined in for 5e, with almost all healing spells being made specifically much weaker than equivalent damaging options for a very important reason. If healing can easily outpace damage, then it becomes almost impossible for a DM to realistically threaten a party with any 'dedicated healer' characters without doing something deeply unfair to the healer. Furthermore, the party becomes nearly helpless in the face of enemy healing. Healing is so much less efficient than damage because that way fights are guaranteed to end, and combatants on both sides of the initiative roll have to do things more interesting that stand around, swing their cods, and get fully healed through incoming damage. If healing were common-MMO level good, 5e would quickly become a horrible slog of battering through endlessly replenishing HP and praying to the gods someone managed to land a key disable or interrupt. No such luck? No end to the fight.
Healing, to me, is something you do when someone goes down (unless you're playing a life cleric). There are a few clear exceptions (Prayer of Healing) but in general, it's just more thematic and exciting that way, not to mention smarter. If it seems like it's not worth it, odds are that's because the DM isn't challenging the party enough to send characters to death saves fairly regularly.
A lot of people who think that D&D healing is weak or broken are often comparing healers in D&D with healers in video games. Healers in video game RPGs can keep up with the rate of damage, but the games often balance out with enemies having extremely high HP compared to the PCs, disparities between player attack damage and enemy attack damage, etc.... one game I play has party HP capped at 9,999, and single enemy hitpoints that can be 20-30 times higher than that (6-10x higher than the entire party's combined HP).
contrast that with D&D. The strongest monster HP wise has maybe 1-2x the HP of an appropriately scaled party, and damage capabilities are mostly equal (or the party has an edge). Plus, many of those games have very limited options to bring a downed party member back, while D&D gives a lot of options (including the application of regular healing, which is almost unheard of in games) unless instant death occurred. So the game is designed differently, and healing doesn't need to be nearly as dramatic as it is in video games to still be effective in D&D.
Finally, healers in D&D are often not explicitly pigeonholed to healing...most have other options for damage, support, or enemy control that allow them to be viable and effective even when not healing, while video game healers often have much less utility outside healing (compensated by having healing be much more effective and necessary for game balance).
Healing in D&D is not generally broken; there are plenty of healing spells that are worth casting, even as a standard action. It's really just that Cure Wounds is bad. Looking at some standard action heals
Goodberry: not combat healing, but it's very efficient for out of combat healing.
Aid: level 2 is only 15 healing, which isn't that much better than the 12-14 you probably get from cure wounds, but it scales very well and has a useful side effect that lasts for eight hours,
Aura of Vitality: not all that good in combat because it costs concentration and bonus actions, but out of combat, it's 70 points of healing for a level 3 spell slot.
Life Transference: it's got serious limits, but it heals an average of 36 to one target.
Mass Cure Wounds: 6 extra healing per target is probably worth going from bonus action to standard action, though it's dubious.
Healing really doesn't need fixing. Even Cure Wounds, which probably gets the most flak, isn't even that weak. it provides an average of 7.5 (scaling to 9.5) healing, while Inflict Wounds deals an average of 11.55 against average AC. You want your bread and butter healing to be weaker than damage output, or battles will get extremely long and boring.
The general consensus is that healing in 5e is not worth the spells (or spell slots). It is better to use spells to end combat quickly. The meager healing a PC is likely to achieve is quite likely to be undone on the next round when the first Hit is scored.
I don't think this is true. I'm sure a number of people have heard something along the lines, but the statement is very simplified and somewhat warped. The idea is that you (generally) shouldn't try to be a dedicated healer, doing nothing but burning slots each turn to keep your party topped off, as you would in an MMO. You can't keep up with damage, so you need to be able to bring more to the table than that. But there are plenty of scenarios where healing is worthwhile in combat, even outside of picking people up from 0HP. A number of powerful spells like Heal are fantastic tide turners and are well worth the spell slot. Preemptively padding a low target that you think will be multi-attacked next turn can also be a very wise use of your action. If you have multiple low party members up against a dragon, it might be worthwhile to drop your Mass Cure Wounds them so that they all don't immediately drop to a breath attack, unless you think you can immediately kill the dragon on your turn.
Being a "healer" in the group means recognizing where and when it makes sense to deploy your limited healing, while also recognizing when to swap tactics and contribute in other ways.
From these theses a few smaller "discussions" arise such as the discussion over whether Healing Word is a better spell than Cure Light Wounds. The merits of H-W rest on it being a bonus action while C-W heals more HP.
The merits of Healing Word are bonus action casting time and range, which vastly outstrip Cure Wounds' higher average healing value since a character at 1 HP is just as effective as one at 10 HP and 5E doesn't use negative hit points. I really don't see what there is to discuss, Healing Word is without a doubt a better spell. Cure Wounds is situationally better when it's just about healing people up out of combat, but that doesn't compare to the more efficient action economy and not having to put yourself in harm's way to go and heal a fallen buddy.
That aside, in-combat healing to keep characters in the fight (not to mention, you know, alive) and out-of-combat healing to be able to stretch the adventuring day are certainly worth it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Healing Word is the true Healer's go-to spell. It has range... it does what it needs to (get people back in the fight). There are times when the scaling of Cure Wounds is worth it, but you're just as likely to get the healer bogged in range of several Attack of Opportunity... so it makes it challenging tactically. This is also why a 50 (25) GP Healing Potion is valuable and a 15,000 GP Potion of Ungodly Healing is garbage (unless you find one... then sure...). The main mechanic is to prevent death saving throws and get someone up enough to cause damage on their turns (hopefully after getting out of harms way).
Healing Spirit was actually the real go to spell, but it was too overpowered so it was broken and only a couple of classes can cast it... which compensated for those classes not having Healing Word. Again... range and healing over time is powerful. Which is why Twilight Clerics are getting so much scrutiny now. Healing over time, without casting a spell... allowing the cleric to keep doing damage or apply multiple heals at once.
The trick is to learn not to heal damage in 5e... it's definitely not worth it. The Healer is there to mitigate Death and to help the party maintain consistency in Damage.
I gotta say, when you DM from levels 1-20 for a party with a dedicated healer life cleric, you CAN'T say healing is bad lol At higher levels, they almost ARE videogame healers.
I'll say this... Healing can't be that bad in 5e, because it's so friggin' hard to kill players in this edition. Think about older editions, where it was generally assumed that you'd have a new character every couple of weeks. That was changed as roleplay became a more important focus of the game rather than just pure combat and dungeon diving, but seriously... healing's fine. Teams can comfortably adventure without a dedicated healer in this system.
I would actually be tempted to fix cure wounds by nerfing healing word: for example, "only works on a target that can hear you", and note that unconscious targets cannot hear.
I'll say this... Healing can't be that bad in 5e, because it's so friggin' hard to kill players in this edition.
Well, one hopes you mean PCs. Killing players has had a pretty consistent difficulty level throughout the years. :)
Actually, for a lot of people, the ease of healing is something that detracts from D&D. Hit points in general make a lot of things that are otherwise solid drama sources irrelevant, and that's why a lot of RPGs don't use them. Consider how, in just a few levels, PCs can take a hit to the chest from a canon ball point blank and get back up, reliably. It also creates a kind of leveling treadmill where gear and abilities has to keep being leveled up, and the character gets more complicated to manage. Think about that versus stories you like to read or watch. Though there's often some growth, many are quite entertaining with slim to none.
More to the point, rather than trying to fix healing, experiment with either not having magical healing, or not gaining much hp with levels. You may find you have more fun.
I think if you wanted to address healing spells in 5e and give them more value, I would address the resting mechanics instead of the spells. That would make what healing spells and healing items that are available a far more important resource.
I would agree with this assessment. Not saying that the short rest and long rest mechanics are wrong or broken, but they definitely decrease the necessity of healing spells when anybody can spend hit dice to heal during a short rest. Plus, getting all of your hit points and half of your hit dice total back after a long rest (under normal conditions) means that you don't need to rely on healing spells outside of combat nearly as much. Earlier editions that only gave you a limited number of hit points back per day (such as 1 hp/level) made a cure wounds spell a far more precious resource.
I would actually be tempted to fix cure wounds by nerfing healing word: for example, "only works on a target that can hear you", and note that unconscious targets cannot hear.
Hmm... Not sure if I would necessary make that a house rule at my tables, but I kinda like the concept of healing word not being effective on unconscious targets, who potentially aren't hearing the spell. Then again, being unconscious isn't necessarily the same as being deafened, so one of the damaging blows might have had to rupture their eardrums or something along those lines.
I'll say this... Healing can't be that bad in 5e, because it's so friggin' hard to kill players in this edition.
Well, one hopes you mean PCs. Killing players has had a pretty consistent difficulty level throughout the years. :)
We used to play in dark gaming store back rooms with convenient access to a quiet alley out back. Now we all play from our individual couches in our individual homes. I can't even throw my oversized d100 novelty die at wayward players right now!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have read more and participated in some threads about healing in 5e. The general consensus is that healing in 5e is not worth the spells (or spell slots). It is better to use spells to end combat quickly. The meager healing a PC is likely to achieve is quite likely to be undone on the next round when the first Hit is scored.
From these theses a few smaller "discussions" arise such as the discussion over whether Healing Word is a better spell than Cure Light Wounds. The merits of H-W rest on it being a bonus action while C-W heals more HP.
1) Would healing in 5e be improved by allowing all healing spells to be Bonus Action Spells? I recognize this almost makes H-W irrelevant, except that it also has a range, but lets agree to set that aside for now.
2) Would 5e be irreparably "broken" if this happened?
Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt
1.) turning almost anything from an action to a bonus action improves the thing. What you're asking is "would this be a good idea?", and the answer is unfortunately no.
2.) Yes, actually. Healing was deliberately reined in for 5e, with almost all healing spells being made specifically much weaker than equivalent damaging options for a very important reason. If healing can easily outpace damage, then it becomes almost impossible for a DM to realistically threaten a party with any 'dedicated healer' characters without doing something deeply unfair to the healer. Furthermore, the party becomes nearly helpless in the face of enemy healing. Healing is so much less efficient than damage because that way fights are guaranteed to end, and combatants on both sides of the initiative roll have to do things more interesting that stand around, swing their cods, and get fully healed through incoming damage. If healing were common-MMO level good, 5e would quickly become a horrible slog of battering through endlessly replenishing HP and praying to the gods someone managed to land a key disable or interrupt. No such luck? No end to the fight.
Please do not contact or message me.
Healing, to me, is something you do when someone goes down (unless you're playing a life cleric). There are a few clear exceptions (Prayer of Healing) but in general, it's just more thematic and exciting that way, not to mention smarter. If it seems like it's not worth it, odds are that's because the DM isn't challenging the party enough to send characters to death saves fairly regularly.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
A lot of people who think that D&D healing is weak or broken are often comparing healers in D&D with healers in video games. Healers in video game RPGs can keep up with the rate of damage, but the games often balance out with enemies having extremely high HP compared to the PCs, disparities between player attack damage and enemy attack damage, etc.... one game I play has party HP capped at 9,999, and single enemy hitpoints that can be 20-30 times higher than that (6-10x higher than the entire party's combined HP).
contrast that with D&D. The strongest monster HP wise has maybe 1-2x the HP of an appropriately scaled party, and damage capabilities are mostly equal (or the party has an edge). Plus, many of those games have very limited options to bring a downed party member back, while D&D gives a lot of options (including the application of regular healing, which is almost unheard of in games) unless instant death occurred. So the game is designed differently, and healing doesn't need to be nearly as dramatic as it is in video games to still be effective in D&D.
Finally, healers in D&D are often not explicitly pigeonholed to healing...most have other options for damage, support, or enemy control that allow them to be viable and effective even when not healing, while video game healers often have much less utility outside healing (compensated by having healing be much more effective and necessary for game balance).
Healing in D&D is not generally broken; there are plenty of healing spells that are worth casting, even as a standard action. It's really just that Cure Wounds is bad. Looking at some standard action heals
Healing really doesn't need fixing. Even Cure Wounds, which probably gets the most flak, isn't even that weak. it provides an average of 7.5 (scaling to 9.5) healing, while Inflict Wounds deals an average of 11.55 against average AC. You want your bread and butter healing to be weaker than damage output, or battles will get extremely long and boring.
I don't think this is true. I'm sure a number of people have heard something along the lines, but the statement is very simplified and somewhat warped. The idea is that you (generally) shouldn't try to be a dedicated healer, doing nothing but burning slots each turn to keep your party topped off, as you would in an MMO. You can't keep up with damage, so you need to be able to bring more to the table than that. But there are plenty of scenarios where healing is worthwhile in combat, even outside of picking people up from 0HP. A number of powerful spells like Heal are fantastic tide turners and are well worth the spell slot. Preemptively padding a low target that you think will be multi-attacked next turn can also be a very wise use of your action. If you have multiple low party members up against a dragon, it might be worthwhile to drop your Mass Cure Wounds them so that they all don't immediately drop to a breath attack, unless you think you can immediately kill the dragon on your turn.
Being a "healer" in the group means recognizing where and when it makes sense to deploy your limited healing, while also recognizing when to swap tactics and contribute in other ways.
The merits of Healing Word are bonus action casting time and range, which vastly outstrip Cure Wounds' higher average healing value since a character at 1 HP is just as effective as one at 10 HP and 5E doesn't use negative hit points. I really don't see what there is to discuss, Healing Word is without a doubt a better spell. Cure Wounds is situationally better when it's just about healing people up out of combat, but that doesn't compare to the more efficient action economy and not having to put yourself in harm's way to go and heal a fallen buddy.
That aside, in-combat healing to keep characters in the fight (not to mention, you know, alive) and out-of-combat healing to be able to stretch the adventuring day are certainly worth it.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Healing Word is the true Healer's go-to spell. It has range... it does what it needs to (get people back in the fight). There are times when the scaling of Cure Wounds is worth it, but you're just as likely to get the healer bogged in range of several Attack of Opportunity... so it makes it challenging tactically. This is also why a 50 (25) GP Healing Potion is valuable and a 15,000 GP Potion of Ungodly Healing is garbage (unless you find one... then sure...). The main mechanic is to prevent death saving throws and get someone up enough to cause damage on their turns (hopefully after getting out of harms way).
Healing Spirit was actually the real go to spell, but it was too overpowered so it was broken and only a couple of classes can cast it... which compensated for those classes not having Healing Word. Again... range and healing over time is powerful. Which is why Twilight Clerics are getting so much scrutiny now. Healing over time, without casting a spell... allowing the cleric to keep doing damage or apply multiple heals at once.
The trick is to learn not to heal damage in 5e... it's definitely not worth it. The Healer is there to mitigate Death and to help the party maintain consistency in Damage.
I gotta say, when you DM from levels 1-20 for a party with a dedicated healer life cleric, you CAN'T say healing is bad lol
At higher levels, they almost ARE videogame healers.
I'll say this... Healing can't be that bad in 5e, because it's so friggin' hard to kill players in this edition. Think about older editions, where it was generally assumed that you'd have a new character every couple of weeks. That was changed as roleplay became a more important focus of the game rather than just pure combat and dungeon diving, but seriously... healing's fine. Teams can comfortably adventure without a dedicated healer in this system.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I would actually be tempted to fix cure wounds by nerfing healing word: for example, "only works on a target that can hear you", and note that unconscious targets cannot hear.
Well, one hopes you mean PCs. Killing players has had a pretty consistent difficulty level throughout the years. :)
Actually, for a lot of people, the ease of healing is something that detracts from D&D. Hit points in general make a lot of things that are otherwise solid drama sources irrelevant, and that's why a lot of RPGs don't use them. Consider how, in just a few levels, PCs can take a hit to the chest from a canon ball point blank and get back up, reliably. It also creates a kind of leveling treadmill where gear and abilities has to keep being leveled up, and the character gets more complicated to manage. Think about that versus stories you like to read or watch. Though there's often some growth, many are quite entertaining with slim to none.
More to the point, rather than trying to fix healing, experiment with either not having magical healing, or not gaining much hp with levels. You may find you have more fun.
I would agree with this assessment. Not saying that the short rest and long rest mechanics are wrong or broken, but they definitely decrease the necessity of healing spells when anybody can spend hit dice to heal during a short rest. Plus, getting all of your hit points and half of your hit dice total back after a long rest (under normal conditions) means that you don't need to rely on healing spells outside of combat nearly as much. Earlier editions that only gave you a limited number of hit points back per day (such as 1 hp/level) made a cure wounds spell a far more precious resource.
Hmm... Not sure if I would necessary make that a house rule at my tables, but I kinda like the concept of healing word not being effective on unconscious targets, who potentially aren't hearing the spell. Then again, being unconscious isn't necessarily the same as being deafened, so one of the damaging blows might have had to rupture their eardrums or something along those lines.
We used to play in dark gaming store back rooms with convenient access to a quiet alley out back. Now we all play from our individual couches in our individual homes. I can't even throw my oversized d100 novelty die at wayward players right now!
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].