I recently saw the Critical Roll episode where Pike cast Mass Healing and got 700 HP to distribute among the entire team. Mercer ruled that she was allowed to know how much healing each party member needed so as to not waste any and since it's a 9th level spell I can see his point. However, I hate metagaming and I think it might have been done differently.
What I would have done is tell the player casting the spell that she would be allowed to know which party members were hurt the worst but not exactly how much. She could then decide whether to heal them up by a set amount or simply say 'fully healed' and then go on to the next character, taking each in turn. In this way, the most wounded can be healed the most, either by a flat number or simply all of it, but there is a risk that the last 1-2 characters don't get anything in a large party. Of course, if they're the least wounded they might be okay with that.
How would all of you handle this? It's a rare case since most spells, especially Healing spells, simply heal the same value to all affected and you take what you get. I'm looking for ideas for the day when my party does this.
I'm of a mind to let the players do similarly, I like to give the players as much of an advantage as I can. I don't see it game breaking to allow something that powerful to "go to waste" because they dropped 50 hp worth of heals on someone who only needed 12.
That said, it could be curated through using something along the lines of:
DM: let me see your hp totals, Pike you see that Grog is looking like he is about to fall to pieces, you feel that he needs the most immediate attention.
Pike: I can heal for a total of 700 hp, I heal Grog to full.
DM: OK, Percy looks to be the next on the list of "I need help" (On a sheet start subtracting the amount healed from the total HP of the spell)
*Goes through the list*
DM: As you feel the power of the spell starting to wane you walk over to Vex and with the last bit of energy you heal for (checks sheet) 23 HP.
Why make it more difficult then it needs to be? Do a quick add of the party's missing HP... if it is less < 700 ... then all healed go about your adventures.
If the damage is > 700 then just use - I heal X player to full... okay that was 72 hp worth of damage healed... 628 hp left... who's next?
As a healer player... knowing you groups hp totals is kind of common... I know Bob has 100 hp max as the fighter, and Mary has 40 hp max as the wizard.... I use different slot levels to heal them differently.
Hiding hit points is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Damage taken by players is not hidden. A diligent healer could keep a sheet tracking damage taken by each player I haven't played a cleric/healer, but this is something i'd totally do). I'd rather not encourage something tedious like that and just leave it open.
I allow my players to talk about how much damage/hp they have to keep things simple.
Presumably, lost hit points have some kind of in-character information to which they correspond that we as players and DMs are not exactly aware of (as we are not our characters and do not actually see what they see, no matter how well-described the DM has made the current conditions around them), and the character is acting upon that information to channel the magical energies appropriately.
That the spell is written as a numeric pool of hit points restored and the character's hp totals are also numeric pools is only so that the real people playing the game understand how to apply the effect - since the writers of the game presume that none of us playing it are actually familiar with the act of channeling magical energies that replenish any/all the things that hit points are a deliberately vague abstraction of.
The challenge of the game is in using the characters to overcome obstacles and challenges represented by other game pieces - it's not supposed to be a challenge just to get your supposedly competent magic user to competently use their magic.
Hiding hit points is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Damage taken by players is not hidden. A diligent healer could keep a sheet tracking damage taken by each player I haven't played a cleric/healer, but this is something i'd totally do). I'd rather not encourage something tedious like that and just leave it open.
I allow my players to talk about how much damage/hp they have to keep things simple.
I don't mind when my players talk specifics about hitpoints with each other, but I don't give the players exact numbers on monsters.
Yea. Monster HP is okay to hide, good descriptions are enough...however little reason to slog the PC's through hidden HP for themselves and other PC's.... just creates a problem that is not needed.
With that said, if you were running a heavy narrative game, where some parts of the players characters are hidden ( HP, XP, bonuses, etc) and controlled by the DM. Then you already have rules in place.
The OP question about CR in particular though, Mercer doesn't run that super secret hidden narrative campaign... so the 700hp let the players control it fits perfect in his world.
I don't mind when my players talk specifics about hitpoints with each other, but I don't give the players exact numbers on monsters.
That's your choice. When I DM, I don't usually tell my players monster HP numbers either, but more as a result of them not asking than of me refusing to let them know if they did ask.
Because, again, hit points are translating information that the characters absolutely do have into a language that players can appropriately respond to and make decisions with. It's not "metagaming" or any other buzzword with negative connotation for the player to be communicated that the monster clearly doesn't have much fight left in it by way of the DM saying "it's got 6 HP left." It's just playing the game.
Hit points are an abstraction for the sake of gameplay. I would trust that my somewhat competent PCs with magic spells and world shaking abilities can figure out roughly who is more injured and apply magic accordingly.
If you really want an in game mechanic, then just use a Medicine check. Make the DC reasonable, and if they pass then they know how much healing is needed. If they fail, then they may overshoot or fall short.
If you really want an in game mechanic, then just use a Medicine check. Make the DC reasonable, and if they pass then they know how much healing is needed. If they fail, then they may overshoot or fall short.
It isn't forbidden for players to discuss their HP totals with each other at my table. However, I've noticed that they - completely on their own - tend to speak in HP percentages instead. E.g., during combat, the cleric will ask ask everyone how they're looking, and the fighter will respond, "I'm at about 60% health," while the sorcerer says, "I'm fine - I'm at 100%," and the paladin says, "I'm really hurting. I'm at only 25%."
I suppose the players have gravitated towards this method of expressing damage because the same amount of damage will mean different things depending on one's total HP. E.g. if the wizard and the barbarian both take 15 damage, that could be disastrous for the wizard but a mere annoyance for the barbarian - so even though they have equal damage, the wizard should be prioritized when healing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
I'm feeling dumb because when I read the spell description:
As you call out words of restoration, up to six creatures of your choice that you can see within range regain hit points equal to 1d4 + your spellcasting ability modifier. This spell has no effect on undead or constructs.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the healing increases by 1d4 for each slot level above 3rd.
...I don't see how this is a deliberate distribution of hit points (You get some, and you get some, and you get some!). The wording of the spell says to me that six creatures in range all receive the same amount of healing (as designated by the spell).
I recently saw the Critical Roll episode where Pike cast Mass Healing and got 700 HP to distribute among the entire team. Mercer ruled that she was allowed to know how much healing each party member needed so as to not waste any and since it's a 9th level spell I can see his point. However, I hate metagaming and I think it might have been done differently.
What I would have done is tell the player casting the spell that she would be allowed to know which party members were hurt the worst but not exactly how much. She could then decide whether to heal them up by a set amount or simply say 'fully healed' and then go on to the next character, taking each in turn. In this way, the most wounded can be healed the most, either by a flat number or simply all of it, but there is a risk that the last 1-2 characters don't get anything in a large party. Of course, if they're the least wounded they might be okay with that.
How would all of you handle this? It's a rare case since most spells, especially Healing spells, simply heal the same value to all affected and you take what you get. I'm looking for ideas for the day when my party does this.
I'm of a mind to let the players do similarly, I like to give the players as much of an advantage as I can. I don't see it game breaking to allow something that powerful to "go to waste" because they dropped 50 hp worth of heals on someone who only needed 12.
That said, it could be curated through using something along the lines of:
DM: let me see your hp totals, Pike you see that Grog is looking like he is about to fall to pieces, you feel that he needs the most immediate attention.
Pike: I can heal for a total of 700 hp, I heal Grog to full.
DM: OK, Percy looks to be the next on the list of "I need help" (On a sheet start subtracting the amount healed from the total HP of the spell)
*Goes through the list*
DM: As you feel the power of the spell starting to wane you walk over to Vex and with the last bit of energy you heal for (checks sheet) 23 HP.
--
The only difference being who does the math.
Why make it more difficult then it needs to be? Do a quick add of the party's missing HP... if it is less < 700 ... then all healed go about your adventures.
If the damage is > 700 then just use - I heal X player to full... okay that was 72 hp worth of damage healed... 628 hp left... who's next?
As a healer player... knowing you groups hp totals is kind of common... I know Bob has 100 hp max as the fighter, and Mary has 40 hp max as the wizard.... I use different slot levels to heal them differently.
Hiding hit points is something that doesn't sit well with me.
Damage taken by players is not hidden. A diligent healer could keep a sheet tracking damage taken by each player I haven't played a cleric/healer, but this is something i'd totally do). I'd rather not encourage something tedious like that and just leave it open.
I allow my players to talk about how much damage/hp they have to keep things simple.
This is not "metagaming" it is just "gaming".
Presumably, lost hit points have some kind of in-character information to which they correspond that we as players and DMs are not exactly aware of (as we are not our characters and do not actually see what they see, no matter how well-described the DM has made the current conditions around them), and the character is acting upon that information to channel the magical energies appropriately.
That the spell is written as a numeric pool of hit points restored and the character's hp totals are also numeric pools is only so that the real people playing the game understand how to apply the effect - since the writers of the game presume that none of us playing it are actually familiar with the act of channeling magical energies that replenish any/all the things that hit points are a deliberately vague abstraction of.
The challenge of the game is in using the characters to overcome obstacles and challenges represented by other game pieces - it's not supposed to be a challenge just to get your supposedly competent magic user to competently use their magic.
I don't mind when my players talk specifics about hitpoints with each other, but I don't give the players exact numbers on monsters.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Yea. Monster HP is okay to hide, good descriptions are enough...however little reason to slog the PC's through hidden HP for themselves and other PC's.... just creates a problem that is not needed.
With that said, if you were running a heavy narrative game, where some parts of the players characters are hidden ( HP, XP, bonuses, etc) and controlled by the DM. Then you already have rules in place.
The OP question about CR in particular though, Mercer doesn't run that super secret hidden narrative campaign... so the 700hp let the players control it fits perfect in his world.
That's your choice. When I DM, I don't usually tell my players monster HP numbers either, but more as a result of them not asking than of me refusing to let them know if they did ask.
Because, again, hit points are translating information that the characters absolutely do have into a language that players can appropriately respond to and make decisions with. It's not "metagaming" or any other buzzword with negative connotation for the player to be communicated that the monster clearly doesn't have much fight left in it by way of the DM saying "it's got 6 HP left." It's just playing the game.
Wow. You got a lot more out of my quote than I put into it. OP asked for opinions and I was just giving mine.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
Hit points are an abstraction for the sake of gameplay. I would trust that my somewhat competent PCs with magic spells and world shaking abilities can figure out roughly who is more injured and apply magic accordingly.
Southampton Guild of Roleplayers
My YouTube (C&C Welcome!)
If you really want an in game mechanic, then just use a Medicine check. Make the DC reasonable, and if they pass then they know how much healing is needed. If they fail, then they may overshoot or fall short.
This seems like a fair compromise
It isn't forbidden for players to discuss their HP totals with each other at my table. However, I've noticed that they - completely on their own - tend to speak in HP percentages instead. E.g., during combat, the cleric will ask ask everyone how they're looking, and the fighter will respond, "I'm at about 60% health," while the sorcerer says, "I'm fine - I'm at 100%," and the paladin says, "I'm really hurting. I'm at only 25%."
I suppose the players have gravitated towards this method of expressing damage because the same amount of damage will mean different things depending on one's total HP. E.g. if the wizard and the barbarian both take 15 damage, that could be disastrous for the wizard but a mere annoyance for the barbarian - so even though they have equal damage, the wizard should be prioritized when healing.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
I'm feeling dumb because when I read the spell description:
...I don't see how this is a deliberate distribution of hit points (You get some, and you get some, and you get some!). The wording of the spell says to me that six creatures in range all receive the same amount of healing (as designated by the spell).
You're looking at the spell description for mass healing word. The description for the spell mass heal has the 700 HP hard limit.
"We're the perfect combination of expendable and unkillable!"
Ah, my mistake. Thank you!