# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 5e/Next >  5e Healing Sucks: How Do We Fix That?

## Schwann145

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people would agree that healing in 5e is not particularly engaging and leaves much to be desired.

In combat, with the way HP and Recovery both work on a fundamental level, the idea of using your healing options before a character hits zero is just... bad tactics. Since a character is at 100% capability with either 2% or 100% HP, you serve them no purpose by dropping a healing spell (or similar effect) to raise them from 15hp to 27hp. You're best served using that resource to harm the enemy or waiting to use it when said character falls to zero.
I'm surprising no one by saying this. We all know this whack-a-mole healing game and I'm sure 90% of us find it tedious and unrewarding.

Out of combat, healing consists of:
Short Rest spending of Hit Dice to restore _some_ lost HP. I think this is a particularly wonderful mechanic that was severely lacking pre-4e and 5e makes great use of it.
-or-
Long Rest recovery, which cures _ALL_ ailments, wounds, HP loss, and resets your character from zero to hero overnight. I think this is a particularly horrible mechanic that makes 5e feel far too "video gamey" and treats characters that could/should be suffering injury of _some sort_ with the kiddiest kid gloves imaginable. It's literally a case of putting a band-aid on a broken arm... except in 5e _it works._

So... what's to be done?
At least for short term/in-combat damage, the DMG offers options like "Injuries" and "Massive Damage."
I think something like Injuries is a wonderful idea... in theory. (I mean, why does the Regeneration spell exist as it does if you _can't lose a limb in the first place?_) I worry, however, that it may be too swingy and would require too much of the DM in play.
Suggestions for Injuries are things like "taking a critical hit," "falling to zero without outright dying," or "failing a death saving throw by 5 or more."
For the first and second, some of the injuries are just too serious to be taking _every_ critical hit or fall to zero; you only have so many eyes and limbs to lose.
For the third, it doesn't make much sense in the moment - you're lying there, unconscious, and suddenly, because of a bad roll, you now have a serious injury you didn't have a moment before? Weird. Too much in-the-moment story finagling to make that make sense.
Massive Damage, on the other hand, just makes sense to me as a rule that should simply be part of core. If something can damage you _so much_ in a single instance, you _should_ have to roll some system shock, right? But, with the way HP grows, it's clear to see why it's an optional rule. A single attack could be Massive Damage at early levels, and falling off a high cliff might not even be enough to trigger Massive Damage at later levels. It's incredibly lopsided and very punishing in the early career for no other reason than, "oops, that's just how the math works out."

Have you used either, or both, of these DMG options? How have they worked out for your group(s) in actual play?
Personally, I like the idea of something a little simpler like a more liberal use of the Exhaustion mechanic, or even something as simple as enforcing some common-sense standards. For instance, when you heal someone from zero, do you allow them to just instantly wake up, stand up, and jump right back into the fray? Why? They're healed and stabilized, but they're definitely still prone from falling down, and maybe they should need to be roused instead of immediately waking from unconsciousness all on their own. Further, maybe every time you're healed from zero, you gain a level of Exhaustion. Now, the whack-a-mole style of healing comes with real consequences, and maybe it _will be_ a good idea to use those healing options earlier so people don't fall to zero and suffer greater negative effects.

For the long-term healing, the only DMG options are "Epic Heroism" and "Gritty Realism." 
Epic Heroism seems to go in exactly the opposite direction, making easy healing even easier. Definitely intended for _very specific_ types of games; games for people who won't even follow this thread.
So the only real option provided to do anything about on-rest healing is the Gritty Realism, which doesn't really address the issue so much as create an entirely different style of gameplay. You still heal HP the same way... it just takes longer time increments.

My thought here is instead of either of the above, to instead put a limit on the number of Hit Dice you can spend on a Short Rest (PB? Con mod?), up to a maximum of... something (half your level?). You get _some_ healing, regardless of having a "healer" or not, for taking a break, but it's a small break so it'll be a small recovery.
On a long-rest, you automatically spend all your unspent Hit Dice and then restore your Hit Dice to full value (not half... never understood only recovering half). So a good night's rest recovers much more than a short break, but it doesn't just cure you of all your ails. For non-HP ailments, instead of simply removing them, perhaps instead allowing a new save (admittedly I've given this part less thought, but you also shouldn't just guarantee non-HP restoration and saves are the go-to mechanic here, so it makes sense).

What have you done at your tables if you agree 5e Healing needs work? Anything like the above? Something entirely different?

----------


## Azuresun

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people would agree that healing in 5e is not particularly engaging and leaves much to be desired.
> 
> In combat, with the way HP and Recovery both work on a fundamental level, the idea of using your healing options before a character hits zero is just... bad tactics. Since a character is at 100% capability with either 2% or 100% HP, you serve them no purpose by dropping a healing spell (or similar effect) to raise them from 15hp to 27hp. You're best served using that resource to harm the enemy or waiting to use it when said character falls to zero.
> I'm surprising no one by saying this. We all know this whack-a-mole healing game and I'm sure 90% of us find it tedious and unrewarding.


Something important to bear in mind is that the better healing gets, the more the old spectre of "who gets the healbot job?" rears its head, where healing is a dull and repetitive role, but also too important to neglect. That's FAR less engaging to me.

Also, do your enemies never attack downed PC's?





> Out of combat, healing consists of:
> Short Rest spending of Hit Dice to restore _some_ lost HP. I think this is a particularly wonderful mechanic that was severely lacking pre-4e and 5e makes great use of it.
> -or-
> Long Rest recovery, which cures _ALL_ ailments, wounds, HP loss, and resets your character from zero to hero overnight. I think this is a particularly horrible mechanic that makes 5e feel far too "video gamey" and treats characters that could/should be suffering injury of _some sort_ with the kiddiest kid gloves imaginable. It's literally a case of putting a band-aid on a broken arm... except in 5e _it works._


You're assuming that HP = meat points and gross injuries. RAW, they don't. Long rest healing simply acknowledges that players want to heal to full before they keep on adventuring, and removes most of the barriers to doing so. And absent a doom clock, they will heal to full, whether that requires resting up for a week in town, or (in 3e) having a golf bag of Cure Light Wounds wands.

----------


## Mastikator

In my game I added this house rule: _When you are reduced to 0 hit points and not outright killed you gain 1 level of exhaustion. This exhaustion is removed when you finish a long or short rest at full HP._
Then I added the exhaustion rules verbatim from the experts UA playtest (each level of exhaustion = -1 to d20 tests and spell DCs, at level 10 you die, recover 1 per long rest).

Yoyoing from death saves to 1 hp in combat causes big short term problems, if you have the healing to heal full from a short rest you can fix it. And of course long rest just removes the exhaustion caused by yoyoing on deaths door.

I don't think healing itself is a problem, I think healing being weak is a good thing, actually. It makes hit points a more precious resource, it means the DM can whittle away at the party's health, if healing was stronger then a DM would have to resort to big spiky high impact damage or save or die effects if they wanted to threaten the party at all (yes you can also kidnap their family and friends, but every level appropriate dungeon should not be full of the full of PC family prisoners waiting for ritual sacrifice, the first time it's meaningful, the second time it's cliché).

You have to remember that hit points and healing are core mechanics, so if you alter them in any slightest way that has a huge effect across the game. You also have to keep in mind that game mechanics are the game's primary way of delivering theme. This is why I didn't want to mess with a core mechanic that I actually like. Instead I targeted the issue directly, IMO it is a problem that the optimal healing strategy is to heal someone on death saves, so I added a medium-term penalty to death saves.

----------


## LostBenefit

> What have you done at your tables if you agree 5e Healing needs work? Anything like the above? Something entirely different?


I do agree that healing only when a party member is unconscious is problematic as consistently being at low hp makes you vulnerable to spells that rely on current HP like Sleep and Disintegrate. In addition, if the DM doesn't pull punches, you can get knocked unconscious and die in the same turn if they focus fire on you while at low HP.

I played an Arcana Cleric in a campaign where my DM changed healing so potions healed the maximum possible (e.g. 10 instead of 2d4+2 for a Potion of Healing) and the recipient of a healing spell could roll hit dice according to the level of the spell slot spent. Group healing (like Mass Healing Word) allowed any party member affected by the spell to roll hit dice but it was split between them (e.g. a level 3 Mass Healing Word allowed one PC to roll 3 hit dice or two PCs to roll 2 and 1/1 and 2, or each PC  could roll 1 hit die).

It made healing enjoyable (and preemptive healing worthwhile) and while maybe not the best solution, it worked for our table.

----------


## Unoriginal

5e healing works for the game 5e is.

One cannot disparage a shovel for being a poor tool to hammer nails with, but disparaging 5e healing for everything that makes it fits within the 5e framework is more like disparaging a shovel for being made to dig holes.

----------


## Sparky McDibben

> 5e healing works for the game 5e is.
> 
> One cannot disparage a shovel for being a poor tool to hammer nails with, but disparaging 5e healing for everything that makes it fits within the 5e framework is more like disparaging a shovel for being made to dig holes.


This is actually kind of poetic. Well said.

----------


## Khosan

Cure Wounds could use some love.  One whole action for 1d8+Casting Modifier is rarely worth it and upcasting doesn't make it much better.  Healing Word at least has the decency to let you keep your action for something more fun.

A fix I've had in mind, but haven't tried, is to allow someone to increase the casting time of Cure Wounds to 1 minute to maximize the healing.  Just makes it a decent out of combat healing option.

----------


## stoutstien

> Cure Wounds could use some love.  One whole action for 1d8+Casting Modifier is rarely worth it and upcasting doesn't make it much better.  Healing Word at least has the decency to let you keep your action for something more fun.
> 
> A fix I've had in mind, but haven't tried, is to allow someone to increase the casting time of Cure Wounds to 1 minute to maximize the healing.  Just makes it a decent out of combat healing option.


It's modified by class/subclass features. Life clerics and celestial locks for example get decent value from CW.

----------


## Pex

> 5e healing works for the game 5e is.
> 
> One cannot disparage a shovel for being a poor tool to hammer nails with, but disparaging 5e healing for everything that makes it fits within the 5e framework is more like disparaging a shovel for being made to dig holes.


We are in agreement.

----------


## Damon_Tor

I think that an important way to think about hitpoints and damage is this: your hit dice ARE hitpoints, your body's ability to sustain injury. As long as you are missing hit dice, you are still injured. The hitpoints you actually have on-hand is more like your pain tolerance: you pass out if you hit zero (and could die from going into shock) but you aren't at "zero": your body has only taken about half the damage it can endure. And you don't recover all your hit dice on a long rest because there are limits to your recovery, even if those limits are super-heroic.

In the past I've allowed for limb removal as a part of an an alternate crit system. When you crit, INSTEAD of rolling extra damage you can instead roll that damage dice to see if you can take off a limb (or take out an eye or wound a specific organ for piercing weapons, or break bones for bludgeoning weapons) so for example, if the fighter crits with his longsword he can try to sever an arm instead of dealing an extra 1d8 damage. Cutting off an arm is a difficulty of 7, which means he needs to roll very high to get it. But if he were using a greatsword instead he would have much better odds.

----------


## JellyPooga

> So the only real option provided to do anything about on-rest healing is the Gritty Realism, which doesn't really address the issue so much as create an entirely different style of gameplay. You still heal HP the same way... it just takes longer time increments.


I'm going reiterate a long standing argument with regards to Gritty Realism, inasmuch that I contend that most players/GMs (at least those that I've encountered on this board) use it wrong. Yes, it can be used as a narrative tool to extend time-scale, but my personal opinion (which has worked in practice) is that it's intended to be used as an entirely different style of play that _intentionally_ limits resources *without* extending time scales. If you're using GR whilst holding to the 6-8 encounters between long rests and thus 2-3 encounters between short rests, then nothing is achieved outside of the narrative. If, on the other hand, you treat GR the same on a narrative time scale as you do the standard rules, the limitation on healing and other rest-based resources changes the game dynamic entirely. "Per long rest" abilities become resources to hoard for critical moments, "Per short rest" features are used daily and "at will" features become bread-and-butter of the adventuring day rather than the fall-back after everything else is exhausted. Does it require a dramatic shift in the expectations of how the game plays? Yes, of course it does. That's the point.

- Healing and damage stops being a side note of resource management and becomes a concern for the entire party and how long they can continue before taking a significant break in their campaign, because even over the course of multiple week-long long rests, short rest healing has that much less impact and HD used and replenished are that much more valuable. 

- Adventuring becomes an exercise in restraint compared to the action-packed magic-fueled hack-a-thon that the standard rules allow form. Players have to pick their battles, reserve their resources and genrally be more cautious.

- Differences in Class dynamics to standard play are notable. Warlocks, for, example, display an extraordinary capacity for using magic on a daily basis compared to Wizards and Clerics, who must marshal their magic only for the most critical times.

Is this style of play for everyone? No. Many players enjoy being able to go all guns blazing. Other players are looking for something less "heroic" and more grounded, more potentially lethal. GR played this way is great for games with a horror theme, low combat or those looking for, funnily enough, a gritty and/or more realistic feel than the high-flying, fantastical adventure that standard 5e offers.

----------


## Ignimortis

Healing sucks and has always sucked. There is no single way to fix it that won't ruffle any feathers. 

However, I am also not sure why are you suggesting to make healing _harder._ It would just lead to somebody being forced into a healbot role, so someone sits there at the table doing _almost nothing but healing._ This would drive many players mad, and I have known several players who got burnt out from games because the game explicitly expected that there would be healers who need to be encouraged to heal often. 

It's exacerbated by the fact that most healing effects currently expect you to spend a whole action on healing a paltry 4d8+4 (average of 22) HP or something are, effectively, making you trade a spell slot AND an action to undo something that most enemies at that level (around 7) do with half of their action. The exception is generally Heal, but it's a 7th level slot, so you get at most three per day, and even then, by level 13, it's _maybe_ half HP for some party members, that they could quite easily lose in an enemy action or two. CR 13 Storm Giant does circa 60 damage with an action. Hurray, you undid an action of an equal-level enemy by spending a 1/day resource. It's an exercise in futility, and making it mandatory doesn't make it more fun or engaging.

IMO, the best way to handle healing is to make it _easier._ In such a paradigm, healing should never be the main focus of your character. You can be better at it or worse at it, but it is always A thing you do, not THE thing you do. You can have characters who barely need any healing, actively regenerating health by themselves or stealing life from enemies. And if you are an HP dispenser by design, then most of your stuff is a Bonus Action at most, and it heals maybe twice as well as it does now. Then you can be an effective healer while still doing something else with your actual actions. Now you can actually help people instead of trading action+spell slot vs action. Anything that actually takes an action and a current-level slot past level 5 should be a powerhouse heal, something along the lines of "restore half HP to all allies in a 30-ft radius", something you bust out for emergencies.

----------


## KillingTime

Our table has played 0HP = 1 level of exhaustion for ages to balance yoyo healing.
It doesn't STOP yoyo healing, but at least it gives it a consequence, which makes players think a bit.
Personally I'd like long rests to be less all encompassingly effective, and I'd certainly be up for some sort of long term injury mmechanic. But 5e is all about simplicity... and if that's what makes it popular, and therefore means we continue to live in a golden age of rpg content, then I'm OK.

----------


## Dork_Forge

I don't think healing sucks and have always disagreed with the yo-yo healing notions, it assumes far too much and rarely talks about the negatives. Breaking healing down into two main categories:

Resting: This is how 5E was designed and I think it works fine, depending on personal tastes and party composition you may want it to be dialed back a bit. For more restricted I like short rests where you roll a number of Hit Dice up to Con mod, and long rests where you either regain hp=Con mod+level and get half your HD back *or* you get to spend as many HD as you want. This places a larger emphasis on the role of a PC's constitution on their ability to bounce back (as I think it should be) whilst slowing rest-based healing into a patch up job, giving heavy adventuring a real cost. For the short rests you can even require a charge from a healer's kit to trigger the healing.

Dealing with yoyo healing I like either not resetting death saves until a long rest, or giving a level of exhaustion when you hit 0. The first time it can go away on a short rest, if it happens more than once, or you stack past the first level, then you need to deal with it normally.

Spells and features: There's nothing really wrong here, healing should do lower numbers than damage, it just works vs a chance to work. People tend to rag on Cure Wounds, but it's a 1st level spell that gives a very good amount of HP back for the 1st few levels, as a 1st level spell should. 

I think there's a distinction between 'I can heal' and 'I'm a healer/_good_ at healing' where the first category is just having access to a healing spell or two, like a Bard or Ranger, and the latter where you have actual class/subclass abilities or another investment in healing.

I do, fundamentally disagree with healing someone whilst they're still up having no real effect, it's not only more realistic, it helps keep people up and feel more secure when they're in combat. Between my to current groups, one is more proactive about healing than the other, and they tend to do a lot better without iffy sections despite significantly high odds against them.

What I'd really like to see from 5E is a couple of more sources of nonmagical healing, the Healer feat is perfect but the dominance of magic is too pronounced for my liking.

Note: I don't consider temp hp or damage reduction healing, I know some people lump them together and that doesn't make sense to me.

----------


## Ignimortis

> Spells and features: There's nothing really wrong here, healing should do lower numbers than damage, it just works vs a chance to work. People tend to rag on Cure Wounds, but it's a 1st level spell that gives a very good amount of HP back for the 1st few levels, as a 1st level spell should.


Upcasting it still sucks. A 5th level Cure Wounds heals 5d8+5, average of 27.5. Your typical character has anywhere from 50 to 90 HP at that point. So 50% for the flimsiest one and >30% for the toughest one. For your best slot. And it keeps falling off the further you go. 




> I do, fundamentally disagree with healing someone whilst they're still up having no real effect, it's not only more realistic, it helps keep people up and feel more secure when they're in combat. Between my to current groups, one is more proactive about healing than the other, and they tend to do a lot better without iffy sections despite significantly high odds against them.


Because healing someone who's down is likely to have them miss a turn lying down and rolling death saves instead of doing stuff. So yes, you do need to heal people who are still up, but only if they are in actual danger of falling to 0 HP between this turn and the next.

----------


## Kane0

> What have you done at your tables if you agree 5e Healing needs work? Anything like the above? Something entirely different?


- Slow natural healing from the DMG
- Healer Kit requirement from the DMG
- One level of exhaustion when magically healed from 0 HP
- I've homebrewed changes to Healing potions and spells that use your action to also let you spend Hit Die to heal further
- In some cases I also employ lingering injuries, usually for dramatic effect (the BBEG dropped you to 0 with a crit, your natural 1 to disarm the trap accidentally triggered it and then you rolled another 1 on the save, etc)

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people would agree


That makes you wrong, regardless of the topic {Scrubbed}.  Gross assertions of that kind are a red flag for "cart load of _excretus bovus_ is about to be unloaded" 

It's a very cheap version of the _vox populi_ fallacy.  (Or argumentum ad populum, except that you are conjuring up the _populum_ out of thin air).  

In this particular case, no people I have played with dislike 5e's healing scheme, and only a very few people I discussed this with, on the internet, dislike it.  And to answer your badly framed question: Do not try fix what isn't broken.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Upcasting it still sucks. A 5th level Cure Wounds heals 5d8+5, average of 27.5. Your typical character has anywhere from 50 to 90 HP at that point. So 50% for the flimsiest one and >30% for the toughest one. For your best slot. And it keeps falling off the further you go.


Do note that healing has a 100% success rate, while attacks only have between a 25% and a 75% (gonna round and say 50%) success rate. So yeah, if you're healing (raw, not adjusting for accuracy) half of what an enemy can do, you're actually denying an entire turn for that enemy on average.

Is it perfect? Nah, not close. But it's better than it seems at first blush.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> In my game I added this house rule: _When you are reduced to 0 hit points and not outright killed you gain 1 level of exhaustion. This exhaustion is removed when you finish a long or short rest at full HP._
> Then I added the exhaustion rules verbatim from the experts UA playtest (each level of exhaustion = -1 to d20 tests and spell DCs, at level 10 you die, recover 1 per long rest).
> 
> Yoyoing from death saves to 1 hp in combat causes big short term problems, if you have the healing to heal full from a short rest you can fix it. And of course long rest just removes the exhaustion caused by yoyoing on deaths door.
> 
> I don't think healing itself is a problem, I think healing being weak is a good thing, actually. It makes hit points a more precious resource, it means the DM can whittle away at the party's health, if healing was stronger then a DM would have to resort to big spiky high impact damage or save or die effects if they wanted to threaten the party at all (yes you can also kidnap their family and friends, but every level appropriate dungeon should not be full of the full of PC family prisoners waiting for ritual sacrifice, the first time it's meaningful, the second time it's cliché).
> 
> You have to remember that hit points and healing are core mechanics, so if you alter them in any slightest way that has a huge effect across the game. You also have to keep in mind that game mechanics are the game's primary way of delivering theme. This is why I didn't want to mess with a core mechanic that I actually like. Instead I targeted the issue directly, IMO it is a problem that the optimal healing strategy is to heal someone on death saves, so I added a medium-term penalty to death saves.


I like this house rule, and it's one I've contemplated adding.  Using existing exhaustion rules saves having to create some other mechanic, and I think it's a fair consequence for hitting 0.  It does also incentivize healing (or more defensive play) before someone goes down, which I think is a good thing.  I'm not currently DMing our group, but I think I'll propose this.

----------


## animorte

> In my game I added this house rule: _When you are reduced to 0 hit points and not outright killed you gain 1 level of exhaustion. This exhaustion is removed when you finish a long or short rest at full HP._
> Then I added the exhaustion rules verbatim from the experts UA playtest (each level of exhaustion = -1 to d20 tests and spell DCs, at level 10 you die, recover 1 per long rest).


Same here. Effective inclusion without being overwhelming.




> That makes you wrong, regardless of the topic{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}.  Gross assertions of that kind are a red flag for "cart load of _excretus bovus_ is about to be unloaded" 
> 
> It's a very cheap version of the _vox populi_ fallacy.  (Or argumentum ad populum, except that you are conjuring up the _populum_ out of thin air).


Haha, well said. Of course, attempting to define each logical fallacy on this site would be nearly impossible to maintain.  :Small Big Grin: 




> Do note that healing has a 100% success rate, while attacks only have between a 25% and a 75% (gonna round and say 50%) success rate. So yeah, if you're healing (raw, not adjusting for accuracy) half of what an enemy can do, you're actually denying an entire turn for that enemy on average.
> 
> Is it perfect? Nah, not close. But it's better than it seems at first blush.


This is true.

----------


## Ignimortis

> Do note that healing has a 100% success rate, while attacks only have between a 25% and a 75% (gonna round and say 50%) success rate. So yeah, if you're healing (raw, not adjusting for accuracy) half of what an enemy can do, you're actually denying an entire turn for that enemy on average.
> 
> Is it perfect? Nah, not close. But it's better than it seems at first blush.


It also expends a spell slot (which generally have much more impactful uses than that, and are also interchangeable - you do not get several "free" Cure Wounds outside of your normal spell slot allocation, you spend the same slots on everything). And it also expends your taction (and usually some of your movement as well). So you're trading action+spell slot for action, which is not exactly a favourable trade. As a matter of comparison, Hold Person/Monster achieves much of the same if the target breaks out of it at the second save, except it would also provide automatic crits against the target and can be used proactively instead of reactively.

----------


## Pex

> I'm going reiterate a long standing argument with regards to Gritty Realism, inasmuch that I contend that most players/GMs (at least those that I've encountered on this board) use it wrong. Yes, it can be used as a narrative tool to extend time-scale, but my personal opinion (which has worked in practice) is that it's intended to be used as an entirely different style of play that _intentionally_ limits resources *without* extending time scales. If you're using GR whilst holding to the 6-8 encounters between long rests and thus 2-3 encounters between short rests, then nothing is achieved outside of the narrative. If, on the other hand, you treat GR the same on a narrative time scale as you do the standard rules, the limitation on healing and other rest-based resources changes the game dynamic entirely. "Per long rest" abilities become resources to hoard for critical moments, "Per short rest" features are used daily and "at will" features become bread-and-butter of the adventuring day rather than the fall-back after everything else is exhausted. Does it require a dramatic shift in the expectations of how the game plays? Yes, of course it does. That's the point.
> 
> - Healing and damage stops being a side note of resource management and becomes a concern for the entire party and how long they can continue before taking a significant break in their campaign, because even over the course of multiple week-long long rests, short rest healing has that much less impact and HD used and replenished are that much more valuable. 
> 
> - Adventuring becomes an exercise in restraint compared to the action-packed magic-fueled hack-a-thon that the standard rules allow form. Players have to pick their battles, reserve their resources and genrally be more cautious.
> 
> - Differences in Class dynamics to standard play are notable. Warlocks, for, example, display an extraordinary capacity for using magic on a daily basis compared to Wizards and Clerics, who must marshal their magic only for the most critical times.
> 
> Is this style of play for everyone? No. Many players enjoy being able to go all guns blazing. Other players are looking for something less "heroic" and more grounded, more potentially lethal. GR played this way is great for games with a horror theme, low combat or those looking for, funnily enough, a gritty and/or more realistic feel than the high-flying, fantastical adventure that standard 5e offers.


With my own bias perhaps I don't find D&D to be a suitable game system for that type of game despite the "gritty realism" rest rules. Resource management is a thing in 5E, but by design 5E is meant for players to use their stuff and get it back. When playing a wizard the player wants to be casting his spells, not always saving it for later. When playing a fighter the player wants to be in the enemy's face giving all heck, not resting at the inn for a week to heal. With also bias I tend to think when people say "gritty realism" they really mean "low magic" and by "low magic" they mean "low power". I expect slow level progression and forget about magic items. That can match up to what you say is a gritty game, but I fall back on D&D is not the system to use for such a game.

----------


## Tanarii

The value of healing in 5e is fine. Characters are rarely at serious risk as long as they pay attention, unless they take on significantly higher than baseline difficulty for individual encounters or extend well past an baseline adventuring day of combat encounters.

Although it is common for folks assessing the value of a healing spell in comparison to damage spells or incoming damage from enemies to miss that it's 100% success rate on healing vs a % chance of success on both the latter.

I don't personally like that the way 0 hps work in 5e results in pop up healing, and that's probably a fairly common opinion. But that's not the fault of healing, it's the fault of the way 0hps works.

Also, I'll note that it's possible for players to fall into the trap if assuming they don't need to heal before 0hps and pop up healing is always superior.  I've had many players fresh from AL and that mindset get characters (not necessarily their own) killed that way.  

- 0 hit point creatures take 2 automatic death save failures when attacked in melee
- low hp creatures are far more susceptible to death by massive damage
- being healed at 0 hps means your prone and possibly anything you were holding is now on the ground, requiring an object interaction to pick up
- being healed at 0 hps may mean your turn was skipped, and the enemy can just knock you right back down before you get a turn

The first two are usually how characters die, other than TPKs and bleeding out.

----------


## Kane0

Also things like Disintegration, Incineration and Zombification start popping up at higher levels which also negates popup healing and revivication.

----------


## Amechra

4e actually had a pretty good answer to this: instead of making healing spells and features _just_ "you heal someone", it made them "you heal someone... and do something else".

In 5e terms... leave bonus action healing alone (because it's already something that you get to do alongside your normal action), and then slap a small buff on healing that involves your action. _Wither and Bloom_ (a weak damage AoE that also lets one of the targets of your choice spend hit-dice) is a decent example of this, despite being pretty under-tuned.

----------


## Leon

> "who gets the healbot job?" rears its head, where healing is a dull and repetitive role


This always come up and puzzles me because over time ive met, played with and know plenty of people who adore doing healing and in some cases healing alone at the exclusion of anything else. I personally don't mind doing it where needed and if playing a character than can provide it will where possible as needed ~ even if its only a Healers kit and a feat.




> 5e healing works for the game 5e is.
> One cannot disparage a shovel for being a poor tool to hammer nails with, but disparaging 5e healing for everything that makes it fits within the 5e framework is more like disparaging a shovel for being made to dig holes.


This is it in a nutshell, for this and similar topics as well.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Upcasting it still sucks. A 5th level Cure Wounds heals 5d8+5, average of 27.5. Your typical character has anywhere from 50 to 90 HP at that point. So 50% for the flimsiest one and >30% for the toughest one. For your best slot. And it keeps falling off the further you go.


You're... framing that as a bad thing? Doing between 40-50% of the average PC's hit point total in a single action heal is massive, particularly given how that total bloats as levels increase. When using something like Cure Wounds proactively in combat, the question asked should be 'will this be enough to keep them up?' and that means: the heal granted + current HP total + any mitigating factors that character may possess. If that healing was even better then it'd be a little outrageous tbh, especially since _good_ healers are not defined by their spells alone, but rather by how they enhance those spells. 

Secondly, why on earth should Cure Wounds scale any better than that? A spell with upcasting should be tempting enough to use, powerful enough to not be a waste, but it shouldn't make actual level-appropriate spells irrelevant. I could see an argument for another single-target burst heal before Heal comes online, but I don't think that's particularly needed, either.




> Because healing someone who's down is likely to have them miss a turn lying down and rolling death saves instead of doing stuff. So yes, you do need to heal people who are still up, but only if they are in actual danger of falling to 0 HP between this turn and the next.


I generally agree with this, with the notion that erring on the side of caution rather than cavalier is usually best, all round. You wouldn't want to be surprised by a crit or a simply high damage roll, for instance. But this is tempered by one of my underlying principles: hit points are the defense that covers all sins.

----------


## Theodoxus

> 4e actually had a pretty good answer to this: instead of making healing spells and features _just_ "you heal someone", it made them "you heal someone... and do something else".
> 
> In 5e terms... leave bonus action healing alone (because it's already something that you get to do alongside your normal action), and then slap a small buff on healing that involves your action. _Wither and Bloom_ (a weak damage AoE that also lets one of the targets of your choice spend hit-dice) is a decent example of this, despite being pretty under-tuned.


This is my sentiment. and one reason I enjoyed the tiny amount of time I got to play 4E - for all the negatives people grouse about, it did have a nice engine.

It seems people who complain about 5E healing, and 'healbots' in general, are coming from an MMO background. I LOVE healing in video games. I'm always the healer. I love every aspect, from sitting back early game trying to maintain mana for spikes; I love late game when mana is no longer an issue and I can even participate is mediocre DPS. I love healers who just heal, buff and remove status effects. I love healers that heal through harming enemies. And if I were to be 100% honest, I wish D&D did offer that kind of game. It doesn't, and I've yet to really find any TTRPG that does - apparently, HP attrition is the last sacred cow.

It's funny that a long rest restores all HP and half your HD. But it's a big no-no to start every fight topped off. Certainly can't top off heal IN a fight. And forget about stealing HP from enemies to give to friends.

But man, wouldn't it be cool to cast an AOE, dealing 1d8 necrotic damage to a decent area, per spell level, and then that creates a pool of health you could divide among your party? Or a Ray that targets one dude and on a failed Con save, allows the caster to send that beam to a party member to heal for the amount of damage rolled?

But no, nearly all the 'cool healing' tricks recently released have been THP based. Twilight, Artillerist, etc. Ablative hit points have their place, but I think the whole notion of topping off heals has been completely ignored outside of Healing Spirit, and of course, that got nerfed to the ground on the alter of Sacred Cow.

----------


## Thunderous Mojo

Sigh..just sigh.

Ignoring the assumptions in the main post, we then get an example of a 5th level Cure Wound spell..ugh.

Temporary Hit Points need to be considered, (in my opinion), in any consideration for Healing.  There are numerous methods of procuring THP, within the game.

Spells such as the pre-errata Healing Spirit and Prayer of Healing are the most efficient healing spells.  Ideally, a group should try to avoid using Instantaneous, Action requiring Healing during combat, (if possible), and use the more efficient spells after combat.

A PC that is devoted to Healing, is likely to be running a spell such as Aura of Vitality.  A Life Cleric  running Aura of Vitality is healing an average of 12 damage per Bonus Action, (up to a guaranteed 17 damage points healed per use at 17th level).

That should be sufficient for most pop up situations.  

A Life Cleric _could_ be tossing a Bonus Action Aura of Vitality usage, coupled with a Mass Cure Wounds, and adding an impressive amount of Healing due to subclass.

A Twilight Cleric could do the same routine, with Twilight Sanctuary up.
A 9th level Twilight cleric is adding an average of 12 Temporary Hit Points with Twilight Sanctuary, Healing 7 points with Aura of Vitality, and Healing 15 points per person on average with Mass Cure Wounds, (assuming a 16 in the Spellcasting Ability Score).

Coincidentally, 34 points of damage is the same amount of average damage that one can expect from a non-Crtical hit from a Balor Demons Longsword.

Negating the hit from a CR 19 terror from Middle Earth, at 9th level does not strike me as inconsequential.

----------


## Pex

> This always come up and puzzles me because over time ive met, played with and know plenty of people who adore doing healing and in some cases healing alone at the exclusion of anything else. I personally don't mind doing it where needed and if playing a character than can provide it will where possible as needed ~ even if its only a Healers kit and a feat.


Certainly people can enjoy the role. It's more a problem when people think that's the only thing you should be doing. Long gone are the days when only clerics could heal, and I'm glad. Back in my 2E days in college I was _literally_ yelled at the day after a game by a player in public in the Student Union because the previous night when playing a cleric I took actions that were not casting Cure Light Wounds. It would be several years later when I overheard him talking to someone else joining a game he was going to run to play a cleric so there would be healing in the party. He agreed saying that's all they're good for.

Those capable of healing should be healing. It is an important job, but that is not the only thing they should be doing.

----------


## Hytheter

In combat healing sucks by design, and that's a good thing. As well as the aforementioned dedicated healer problem, it just plain drags out combat.

----------


## Amechra

> It doesn't, and I've yet to really find any TTRPG that does - apparently, HP attrition is the last sacred cow.


The one exception I can think of are "high level" Shallyans in Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 2e  they're the pacifist followers of the Goddess of Mercy with an _absolutely bonkers_ healing spell. Their Cure Wounds spell heals people for 1d10+2 damage _at-will_.

That might not _sound_ like much, but this is a system where player HP is going to cap out around 15 and damage reduction (through both armor and your Toughness stat) is _king_. In context, this would be like if Cure Wounds was a cantrip that healed someone for 50% or more of their HP. On top of that, Shallyans get an equivalent of 5e's _Warding Bond_... except it transfers _all_ of the damage that the target would take, and it deals it to the Shallyan _before_ taking armor and toughness into account. They make _hilariously_ effective heal-tanks as a result (which is just as well, since that vow of pacifism means that their other combat options are... _limited_).

Before you get there, though, you're "just" a masterful doctor who is pretty much universally beloved by the people your party will meet, since Shallyans offer their literally-the-best-in-the-setting-accept-no-substitutes medical services _for free_. You know, minor perks. :p

----------


## Tanarii

> Certainly people can enjoy the role. It's more a problem when people think that's the only thing you should be doing. Long gone are the days when only clerics could heal, and I'm glad. Back in my 2E days in college I was _literally_ yelled at the day after a game by a player in public in the Student Union because the previous night when playing a cleric I took actions that were not casting Cure Light Wounds. It would be several years later when I overheard him talking to someone else joining a game he was going to run to play a cleric so there would be healing in the party. He agreed saying that's all they're good for.


Which was just silly of them.  Clerics were also good at wearing heavy armor and standing on the front line, staying in between the enemies and the party Thieves/Magic-users, while meting out the occasional mace thwap.

Which is something they still do well.

----------


## Kane0

> But man, wouldn't it be cool to cast an AOE, dealing 1d8 necrotic damage to a decent area, per spell level, and then that creates a pool of health you could divide among your party? Or a Ray that targets one dude and on a failed Con save, allows the caster to send that beam to a party member to heal for the amount of damage rolled?


That sounds pretty neat, wanna spin up a homebrew thread?

----------


## Schwann145

> 5e healing works for the game 5e is.
> 
> One cannot disparage a shovel for being a poor tool to hammer nails with, but disparaging 5e healing for everything that makes it fits within the 5e framework is more like disparaging a shovel for being made to dig holes.


This sort of, "it is what it is," point kinda defeats the entire purpose of having discussions about the game, doesn't it? Might as well just shut down the forums with this kinda logic.  :Small Tongue: 




> Healing sucks and has always sucked. There is no single way to fix it that won't ruffle any feathers. 
> 
> However, I am also not sure why are you suggesting to make healing _harder._ It would just lead to somebody being forced into a healbot role, so someone sits there at the table doing _almost nothing but healing._ This would drive many players mad, and I have known several players who got burnt out from games because the game explicitly expected that there would be healers who need to be encouraged to heal often. 
> 
> ~snip~


I don't think we have to worry about forced healbots any longer, even if healing gets harder. For one, the Hit Dice mechanics allow for healing that never existed in ye olde days of required Cleric healbots. For another, healing tools have been spread around so that they're not all funneled through only a single character source like they used to be.
Instead, I believe we have the opposite problem, where playing a dedicated healer is mostly just a waste. It's far better to play a character that _can_ heal and not a _healer_ because of how easy healing is. Some people enjoy the dedicated support style but there's just no demand for something like a Life Cleric. Making the healing a bit harder allows for such players to be/feel more valued in their desired role.

For some of your other points, however, I can't help but agree. I think individual healing options were always better in a scaling spell system, and 5e's turn to a leveling spell system has hurt healing spells. When a high level healer could cast a 5d8+Mod Cure Wounds with a 1st level slot, it may not have been a massive boon but it at least didn't feel like a wasted action. Casting a 1d8+Mod 1st level Cure Wounds at high levels now absolutely feels like a waste, and upcasting is _very_ expensive.
If healing has to deal with upcasting rather than scaling, buffing the individual spells isn't unreasonable. Even doubling the dice doesn't really feel like too much (2d8 base for Cure, increased by 2 every level upcast, for example).

----------


## Mastikator

> In combat healing sucks by design, and that's a good thing. As well as the aforementioned dedicated healer problem, it just plain drags out combat.


Worse yet, if the DM wants to threaten the players they need to drastically up the damage with extremely powerful nova attacks. Which is why you see in both analog and digital RPGs bosses with those kinds of attacks in games where healing is prevalent, but much less in games where healing is scarce and limited. It also creates a meta where players need to have a very high maximum hit points to counter these mega attacks from the enemies. Which yet again pushes the developers/DM to up the damage, and pushes the players to put even more points into hit points and less into everything else.

I think if someone were to have a problem with specific aspects of healing in D&D they should address those problems directly rather than trying to cure the wrong disease.

----------


## JellyPooga

> With my own bias perhaps I don't find D&D to be a suitable game system for that type of game despite the "gritty realism" rest rules. Resource management is a thing in 5E, but by design 5E is meant for players to use their stuff and get it back. When playing a wizard the player wants to be casting his spells, not always saving it for later. When playing a fighter the player wants to be in the enemy's face giving all heck, not resting at the inn for a week to heal. With also bias I tend to think when people say "gritty realism" they really mean "low magic" and by "low magic" they mean "low power". I expect slow level progression and forget about magic items. That can match up to what you say is a gritty game, but I fall back on D&D is not the system to use for such a game.


D&D rules are primarily focused on combat and resource use, true, and that encourages a play style that's fast and free, but that doesn't preclude using them for games that aren't so heavily invested in such things. The "problem" with healing as the OP opines certainly isn't fixed by Gritty Realism, but playing a game that uses it appropriately does make use of resources that compete for it (mostly spell slots) or are limited and more impactful. Whether or not a different system will be more appropriate for that style of game is worth considering, but games (at least the ones I've encountered, which are many) that are tend to utilise a similar dynamic; namely a lower number of such resources and slower healing and/or lower "health bars".

Using D&D for games outside the standard is precisely what the variant rule is for and it's important to recognise, when doing so, that the game and the assumptions about how it and all its moving parts function are *different* in more ways than just altering the narrative time scale.

----------


## Unoriginal

> This sort of, "it is what it is," point kinda defeats the entire purpose of having discussions about the game, doesn't it?


There is plenty to discuss about the game. But you cannot talk a shovel out of being made to dig holes, and you cannot talk 5e out of being 5e.

5e HPs and assorted sub-systems such as HDs and healing, work the way they do because of how everything else in the game work, and it works as intended. Not liking what is intended does not mean it is broken.

And sure, you can hit the shovel against a wall again and again and again until the head ressembles an hammer's. But you still won't have a hammer, you'll just have a bent shovel that is slightly less bad than before for nailing things and that is considerably worse for digging holes, not to mention the damages you'll have likely done to the wall.

Point is, Schwann145, is that as you've made abundantly clear in several threads, you do not like how HPs work in 5e. And yes, 5e is objectively, factually terrible for the kind of health system you enjoy, the same as how a shovel is objectively, factually terrible for hammering nails.

To continue the metaphore, this forum is made to discuss the shovel and hole-digging. Making a thread for discussing if this shovel is bad at digging holes in the sand or not is relevant, as is proposing ways to make it better to dig in the sand. But making a thread about how the shovel is bad for hammering nails into wooden planks is not relevant. It is an objectively correct statement, but a pointless one, because while it is true the shovel is bad at that task, it is also not meant to be good or even passable at that task, it's meant for a whole different task with no thought put into if it could be used for hammering.

And so the thread at best becomes people saying "have you tried using a hammer?" or "if you bend your shovel X way it's kind of better for hammering nails than before."

----------


## zlefin

One thing I'd try mining for ideas is the various MOBAs;  I remember in particular for league of legends there were issues early on that many of the supports' healing abilities were a bit bland and didn't make for interesting gameplay.  In particular early iterations of Soraka had her mostly function like a fountain, continually topping off an allied heroes health and mana and not doing much else.  They made a lot of changes over the years to make the heals lead to more interesting gameplay, and/or make them more relevant in combat, and interesting to time optimally, and to simply make playing a support more fun.

----------


## Frogreaver

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people would agree that healing in 5e is not particularly engaging and leaves much to be desired.
> 
> In combat, with the way HP and Recovery both work on a fundamental level, the idea of using your healing options before a character hits zero is just... bad tactics.


That's only true under a certain set of assumptions

Enemies don't or can't target downed alliesThe ally at risk isn't concentrating on an important spell or ragingTurn order is such that the ally will get to act after being healed but before being downed again

I'm sure there's more but this is sufficient to make my point.  Remove these assumptions and healing an ally that isn't at 0 can easily become a good tactic.

IMO.  We remember whack-a-mole because when conditions favor it's use it's a very strong tactic.  Couple that with DM's not feeling great about attacking downed PC's and favorable conditions tend to occur frequently.  

Thus, there's 2 solutions, find a way to make whack a mole healing less strong or find a way to make favorable conditions for its use occur much less frequently.  I suggest the 2nd option is the easier and can be accomplished by simply having enemies target downed allies - not even all the time, just more often than rarely.  This should achieve the results you want to see.




> Since a character is at 100% capability with either 2% or 100% HP, you serve them no purpose by dropping a healing spell (or similar effect) to raise them from 15hp to 27hp. You're best served using that resource to harm the enemy or waiting to use it when said character falls to zero.


*Unless the ally is concentrating on a spell.
*Unless the allies potential action is more important than yours - SS+CBE Battlemaster Fighter for example - AND he would lose it due to turn order if dropping to 0
*Unless enemies target the downed ally




> I'm surprising no one by saying this. We all know this whack-a-mole healing game and I'm sure 90% of us find it tedious and unrewarding.


I'd suggest that DM's have already solved for it in one of 2 ways
They target downed PC'sThey embrace whack-a-mole healing by not targeting downed PC's and do so due to it allowing PC's to behave more heroically because they want to run a heroic campaign where PC's aren't afraid to jump into battle




> Out of combat, healing consists of:
> Short Rest spending of Hit Dice to restore _some_ lost HP. I think this is a particularly wonderful mechanic that was severely lacking pre-4e and 5e makes great use of it.
> -or-
> Long Rest recovery, which cures _ALL_ ailments, wounds, HP loss, and resets your character from zero to hero overnight. I think this is a particularly horrible mechanic that makes 5e feel far too "video gamey" and treats characters that could/should be suffering injury of _some sort_ with the kiddiest kid gloves imaginable. It's literally a case of putting a band-aid on a broken arm... except in 5e _it works._


Sounds more like a problem with the fundamental concept of hp as an abstraction that covers more than physical wounds.  It may not be your preferred model but it is a valid one and one that many people that play 5e actually enjoy.




> For the long-term healing, the only DMG options are "Epic Heroism" and "Gritty Realism." 
> Epic Heroism seems to go in exactly the opposite direction, making easy healing even easier. Definitely intended for _very specific_ types of games; games for people who won't even follow this thread.
> So the only real option provided to do anything about on-rest healing is the Gritty Realism, which doesn't really address the issue so much as create an entirely different style of gameplay. You still heal HP the same way... it just takes longer time increments.


The purpose of gritty realism is if you are running a campaign where there aren't really going to be more than 1 combat per day due to typical distances between Enemy groups.  As such 5e's attrition-based resource model breaks down - too few encounters in the rest period.  Gritty realism fixes that.  It also has the side effect of causing healing and resource recovery to be slower, which some players seem to prefer.




> My thought here is instead of either of the above, to instead put a limit on the number of Hit Dice you can spend on a Short Rest (PB? Con mod?), up to a maximum of... something (half your level?). You get _some_ healing, regardless of having a "healer" or not, for taking a break, but it's a small break so it'll be a small recovery.
> On a long-rest, you automatically spend all your unspent Hit Dice and then restore your Hit Dice to full value (not half... never understood only recovering half). So a good night's rest recovers much more than a short break, but it doesn't just cure you of all your ails. For non-HP ailments, instead of simply removing them, perhaps instead allowing a new save (admittedly I've given this part less thought, but you also shouldn't just guarantee non-HP restoration and saves are the go-to mechanic here, so it makes sense).


While cool, i don't know what problem this change is solving?  Why is the current rate of hp recovery via hit dice in a short/long rest problematic?




> What have you done at your tables if you agree 5e Healing needs work? Anything like the above? Something entirely different?


Ran through giving players 10 extra starting hp while making death occur at 0 hp.  Seemed to work well, though late game with large AOE's it might could be too unforgiving.

Also, played where hitting 0 hp didn't make a PC drop, instead they stayed up and would continue making their death saves and having hits against them cause another death save.  Healing wouldn't reset the death saves, but would prevent more death saves from occuring until at 0 hp again.  - felt like a power increase to team pc but i did see more pc deaths this way than traditional 5e play and not targeting downed players.

----------


## Pex

> Which was just silly of them.  Clerics were also good at wearing heavy armor and standing on the front line, staying in between the enemies and the party Thieves/Magic-users, while meting out the occasional mace thwap.
> 
> Which is something they still do well.


The person in question hated with vehement passion when I did that because I wasn't a fighter.

----------


## Sorinth

> This is my sentiment. and one reason I enjoyed the tiny amount of time I got to play 4E - for all the negatives people grouse about, it did have a nice engine.
> 
> It seems people who complain about 5E healing, and 'healbots' in general, are coming from an MMO background. I LOVE healing in video games. I'm always the healer. I love every aspect, from sitting back early game trying to maintain mana for spikes; I love late game when mana is no longer an issue and I can even participate is mediocre DPS. I love healers who just heal, buff and remove status effects. I love healers that heal through harming enemies. And if I were to be 100% honest, I wish D&D did offer that kind of game. It doesn't, and I've yet to really find any TTRPG that does - apparently, HP attrition is the last sacred cow.
> 
> It's funny that a long rest restores all HP and half your HD. But it's a big no-no to start every fight topped off. Certainly can't top off heal IN a fight. And forget about stealing HP from enemies to give to friends.
> 
> But man, wouldn't it be cool to cast an AOE, dealing 1d8 necrotic damage to a decent area, per spell level, and then that creates a pool of health you could divide among your party? Or a Ray that targets one dude and on a failed Con save, allows the caster to send that beam to a party member to heal for the amount of damage rolled?
> 
> But no, nearly all the 'cool healing' tricks recently released have been THP based. Twilight, Artillerist, etc. Ablative hit points have their place, but I think the whole notion of topping off heals has been completely ignored outside of Healing Spirit, and of course, that got nerfed to the ground on the alter of Sacred Cow.


Not a cleric spell but Wither and Bloom does AoE necrotic damage and heals an ally.

But for sure they could make more interesting healing spells and/or healing incentives. For example, if you've ever played an Order Cleric healer there's plenty of incentive to do top up healing.

----------


## animorte

> They made a lot of changes over the years to make the heals lead to more interesting gameplay, and/or make them more relevant in combat, and interesting to time optimally, and to simply make playing a support more fun.


I agree and was there for every minute of it. Ive enjoyed playing support for most of my time with that game.

There are a lot different kinds of buffs to speak of and _more importantly_ supports are often in that position because their value lies in the abilities effectiveness *without the prerequisite* of gold and they dont need to do damage. Why?

Because they provide more control. I have always thought that CC (crowd control) should be more of a supportive role along with their heals/buffs. Sure, others will definitely have _some_ capability, but shouldnt be the best.




> While cool, i don't know what problem this change is solving?  Why is the current rate of hp recovery via hit dice in a short/long rest problematic?


Ive never particularly been a fan of anything that requires counting HD to be effective, personally. I mean, it certainly works, but I would prefer the mechanic _actually_ be used for more things. Otherwise, why is it randomly established in only a couple places? It just sticks out like a sore thumb, as one might say.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> ...while meting out the occasional mace thwap.
> 
> Which is something they still do well.


Yep. Or a warhammer if one is a dwarf or tempest cleric.  :Small Smile: 



> There is plenty to discuss about the game. But you cannot talk a shovel out of being made to dig holes, and you cannot talk 5e out of being 5e.  
> And so the thread at best becomes people saying "have you tried using a hammer?" or "if you bend your shovel X way it's kind of better for hammering nails than before."


 Healing in 5e is fit for purpose. 



> The person in question hated with vehement passion when I did that because I wasn't a fighter.


 Looks like you have had some various interesting, and sometimes difficult to play with, table mates over the years.

----------


## Amechra

> The person in question hated with vehement passion when I did that because I wasn't a fighter.


I'm reminded of one time when I was playing a Monk and one of the players kept "joking" that they wanted to force me to wear heavy armor "for safety" (to the point where I'm pretty sure if stopped being a joke), or the time when someone kept trying to force my socially-focused Force User in a Star Wars game to use a blaster (despite said character being built around using their force powers to stun enemies, which was _more_ effective for someone with my stats than shooting them with a blaster).

Some people are just _absolute jerks_ who demand that other people play the game the way _they_ think it should be played.

----------


## Schwann145

> There is plenty to discuss about the game. But you cannot talk a shovel out of being made to dig holes, and you cannot talk 5e out of being 5e.
> 
> 5e HPs and assorted sub-systems such as HDs and healing, work the way they do because of how everything else in the game work, and it works as intended. Not liking what is intended does not mean it is broken.
> 
> And sure, you can hit the shovel against a wall again and again and again until the head ressembles an hammer's. But you still won't have a hammer, you'll just have a bent shovel that is slightly less bad than before for nailing things and that is considerably worse for digging holes, not to mention the damages you'll have likely done to the wall.
> 
> Point is, Schwann145, is that as you've made abundantly clear in several threads, you do not like how HPs work in 5e. And yes, 5e is objectively, factually terrible for the kind of health system you enjoy, the same as how a shovel is objectively, factually terrible for hammering nails.
> 
> To continue the metaphore, this forum is made to discuss the shovel and hole-digging. Making a thread for discussing if this shovel is bad at digging holes in the sand or not is relevant, as is proposing ways to make it better to dig in the sand. But making a thread about how the shovel is bad for hammering nails into wooden planks is not relevant. It is an objectively correct statement, but a pointless one, because while it is true the shovel is bad at that task, it is also not meant to be good or even passable at that task, it's meant for a whole different task with no thought put into if it could be used for hammering.
> ...


{Scrubbed}
Unless you think that the alternative suggestions that _the game itself_ provides (through the DMG) are also trying to talk 5e out of being 5e? Because I discuss those options in the OP and, generally, come to the conclusion that less-extreme changes would be better. Changes that, by the way, don't fundamentally change anything about the core game, but rather simply include core game mechanics in a new, different, potentially more player-engaging, way.

The idea that anything I suggested is akin to using a shovel to hammer nails instead of a hammer is just... wild.

Or... maybe you think the 5e DMG is also anti-5e? That wouldn't make much sense to me but, to each their own?

----------


## Dork_Forge

> This leads me to believe that you didn't even bother to read the OP; just saw the title and jumped to conclusions.
> Unless you think that the alternative suggestions that _the game itself_ provides (through the DMG) are also trying to talk 5e out of being 5e? Because I discuss those options in the OP and, generally, come to the conclusion that less-extreme changes would be better. Changes that, by the way, don't fundamentally change anything about the core game, but rather simply include core game mechanics in a new, different, potentially more player-engaging, way.
> 
> The idea that anything I suggested is akin to using a shovel to hammer nails instead of a hammer is just... wild.
> 
> Or... maybe you think the 5e DMG is also anti-5e? That wouldn't make much sense to me but, to each their own?


I understand what you're getting at, but let's also not pretend that the variants in the DMG represent what 5E is meant to be, or is by default, and certainly not the most robust, considerate alternatives. Heck, if the former were true, they wouldn't really be variants, since they kept you in the same default experience. You can strap on a fist full of official variants and end up with a very different game than out the box 5E.

----------


## Pex

> Looks like you have had some various interesting, and sometimes difficult to play with, table mates over the years.


It was way back in college during my 2E years. It totally shaped my attitude to D&D you now have to suffer to experience.  :Small Wink:  :Small Big Grin: 

More seriously it is why I liked 3E so much. I had fun with 2E. I really did. However, everything I did hate about the game in general 3E got rid of in terms of philosophy of play and game mechanics annoyances. Despite my issue with skills 5E is great too. Hindsight is 20/20, but if 5E was 3E I'd like to think I'd be just as happy and considering 2E proficiency rules I might not have even been so upset with the skill use. 3E spoiled me on that.

----------


## Unoriginal

> This leads me to believe that you didn't even bother to read the OP; just saw the title and jumped to conclusions.
> Unless you think that the alternative suggestions that _the game itself_ provides (through the DMG) are also trying to talk 5e out of being 5e? Because I discuss those options in the OP and, generally, come to the conclusion that less-extreme changes would be better.


The options you proposed are not "less-extreme changes":




> Personally, I like the idea of something a little simpler like a more liberal use of the Exhaustion mechanic, or even something as simple as enforcing some common-sense standards. For instance, when you heal someone from zero, do you allow them to just instantly wake up, stand up, and jump right back into the fray? Why? They're healed and stabilized, but they're definitely still prone from falling down, and maybe they should need to be roused instead of immediately waking from unconsciousness all on their own. Further, maybe every time you're healed from zero, you gain a level of Exhaustion. Now, the whack-a-mole style of healing comes with real consequences, and maybe it _will be_ a good idea to use those healing options earlier so people don't fall to zero and suffer greater negative effects
> 
> [...]
> 
> My thought here is instead of either of the above, to instead put a limit on the number of Hit Dice you can spend on a Short Rest (PB? Con mod?), up to a maximum of... something (half your level?). You get _some_ healing, regardless of having a "healer" or not, for taking a break, but it's a small break so it'll be a small recovery.
> On a long-rest, you automatically spend all your unspent Hit Dice and then restore your Hit Dice to full value (not half... never understood only recovering half). So a good night's rest recovers much more than a short break, but it doesn't just cure you of all your ails. For non-HP ailments, instead of simply removing them, perhaps instead allowing a new save (admittedly I've given this part less thought, but you also shouldn't just guarantee non-HP restoration and saves are the go-to mechanic here, so it makes sense).






> Changes that, by the way, don't fundamentally change anything about the core game, but rather simply include core game mechanics in a new, different, potentially more player-engaging, way.


Those changes would fundamentally change a lot about the core game.

Even just the "get Exhaustion after healing from 0" fundamentally changes the stakes of combat. Low-level PCs are now one crit away from being debuffed for the whole rest of the day, for example, and each successive debuff make it worse. 

Add that to the proposal of limiting Short Rest healing, and you get a game mod where each damage taken hurts a lot more than even with both the Gritty Realism and Injuries DMG options.

A situation, to exemplify what I mean: 

A lvl 6 Rogue with 45 HPs gets hit by an Hill Giant's club. Dealing average damage, that's 18 damages, so the Rogue has 27 HPs. The Hill Giant having multiattack, they try hitting the Rogue again, and hit again. Dealing average damages, the Rogue now has 9 HPs. 

If the Rogue gets hit one more time, they go down, unless they get more than 9 HPs of healing beforehand. Meaning that they'll get an Exhaustion level, putting all of their ability checks at disadvantage until the next long rest, if healed. The Rogue could possibly get more than 18 HPs out of that from-0-healing, but that is unlikely, meaning that the Rogue is once again one successful average attack away from 0 HPs. And the Giant has two per turn. Meaning that the next time they get hit, the Rogue will get Exhaustion 2, reducing their speed until the next long rest. After that, it's Exhaustion 3, the Rogue is now slowed, with disadvantage with ability checks, and disadvantage on all attack rolls and saving throws. 

That's the damage one CR 5 foe can do, for one fight. It's not the most likely occurrence, to be sure, but it's certainly not outlandish for a lvl 6 Rogue to be hit 6 times when fighting an Hill Giant, even in a group of 4 (or, if the damages are rolled, the Giant could just roll higher than average).

It would take several Short Rests for that Rogue to heal fully without the healer spending more spell slots, and with the debuffs they have it's unwise to continue adventuring, so the adventure day is likely over if the PCs are in a position to make that choice. The Exhaustion debuffs won't fully disappear until three Long Rests, so if the Rogue wants to be in top shape that's four adventure days they have to spent without getting hurt more, so in other words four adventure days where adventuring is with a penalty.

To reiterate: one Easy Encounter going harder than expected, and you have one PC hindered in a far from trivial way for 4 days.

And the same or worse could easily happen with two or three Easy encounters going as expected, since even with a Short Rest the Rogue would get less healing/require more spell slots to be spent on them.

Now imagine what would happen with a Deadly Encouter, say one Hill Giant and two Ogres vs 4 lvl 6 PCs.




> The idea that anything I suggested is akin to using a shovel to hammer nails instead of a hammer is just... wild.


As shown in the example above, no, it is not wild.

A game where one supposedly Easy encounter on Monday can hinder a character until Thursday is very different from the pace and heroic feel of 5e. It's far more punishing than the Lingering Injuries rules, and far more taxing than the Gritty Realism rules. I admit I haven't thought enough about the Massive Damage DMG option to make a definitive judgment about the impact it'd have on the game, but I feel your suggested changes would still impact 5e combat 
 a lot more, because it affects not only the big damage bursts, but all the sources of damage.

And once you've changed the pace, the feel, etc. so much, you already are looking at using the 5e shovel to hammer nails.


EDIT:

Just another example: A CR 6 Young White Dragon can usually have at least a couple of PCs in their breath's AoE. Said breath deals 45 damages on average on a failed save.

Meaning that if the 45 HP lvl 6 Rogue fails that CON save and get average damage, they're severely hindered until the next Long Rest, and it's likely at least another PC has been affected by the breath to some extent.

A CR 6 Young White Dragon is considered an Easy encounter against 4 lvl 6 PCs.

----------


## Schwann145

> I understand what you're getting at, but let's also not pretend that the variants in the DMG represent what 5E is meant to be, or is by default, and certainly not the most robust, considerate alternatives.


What is D&D "meant to be?" And, by whom?
Because the developers certainly have always, strongly, maintained a stance of, "these rules are guidelines; use, change, or ignore them as you see fit."




> The options you proposed are not "less-extreme changes":
> 
> Even just the "get Exhaustion after healing from 0" fundamentally changes the stakes of combat. Low-level PCs are now one crit away from being debuffed for the whole rest of the day, for example, and each successive debuff make it worse.
> 
> It's far more punishing than the Lingering Injuries rules, and far more taxing than the Gritty Realism rules.


If you honestly, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that temporary exhaustion levels is not less extreme than potential permanent limb loss... Then this conversation will go nowhere.
Agree to disagree.

----------


## Unoriginal

> If you honestly, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that temporary exhaustion levels is not less extreme than potential permanent limb loss... Then this conversation will go nowhere.
> Agree to disagree.


1) Lingering Injuries are not a certainty. Getting Exhaustion from falling to 0 and being healed is, by the rules you presented.

2) Not all Lingering Injuries are equally hindering, ranging from "disadvantage to WIS(Perception) and ranged attacks" to "no effect". Getting Exhaustion starts with disadvantage to all ability checks and ends with death.

3) Most Lingering Injuries are automatically healed from any source of magical healing. Exhaustion is only healed by a Long Rest or by Greater Restoration, one level per Long Rest/casting.

4) It's not just Exhaustion, it's Exhaustion + limited Short Rest healing.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> What is D&D "meant to be?" And, by whom?
> Because the developers certainly have always, strongly, maintained a stance of, "these rules are guidelines; use, change, or ignore them as you see fit."


I didn't say D&D, I said 5E, which is much more specific. Whilst you can ignore and change rules to your purview as a DM, I don't think it's controversial to say that those changes are automatically inside the 5E design paradigm.

If the variants were inside that paradigm, they wouldn't be variants, they would just be the rules.

----------


## Pex

> If you honestly, in your heart of hearts, truly believe that temporary exhaustion levels is not less extreme than potential permanent limb loss... Then this conversation will go nowhere.
> Agree to disagree.


Yes because it's not fun to play. Part of the problem is the exhaustion rules themselves. Even without your way, suppose a game session is Exploration Day. It's about traveling the thick forest avoiding hazards, dealing with natives, etc. Something happens in the first encounter that gives a PC one exhaustion level. No harm, right? Next long rest it will go away. It's _only_ disadvantage on ability checks, including initiative. However, the game session just started. It will be roughly 4 real world hours of play before the party gets to long rest, and that PC has to roll with disadvantage for everything, failing a majority of time. The DM and other players laugh because it's seems so funny to them, but that player is miserable failing everything. That player has been but not always me. This might even be a one shot game at a game convention or a break in the campaign or a trial run session 0 or whatever.

Permanent limb loss might as well kill the character and make a new one. Exhaustion doesn't even have that mercy.

----------


## Dork_Forge

Honestly the severity of lingering injuries is incredibly swingy, but likely no where near as much of a death spiral as stacking exhaustion is.

Losing a limb _sounds_ terrible, but the effects aren't even that bad, and depending on what you lost and what your build is, you might not even notice.

A spellcaster with a component pouch largely won't care that they only have one arm, a flying PC won't care they only have one foot/leg. Heck, an Aarakocra wouldn't really suffer at all from losing an eye.

----------


## animorte

> It's _only_ disadvantage on ability checks, including initiative.


Yes, _only_ ability checks. Not, as you say, everything:



> and that PC has to roll with disadvantage for everything, failing a majority of time.


It has no affect on passive checks, saving throws, or attack rolls. It also isnt terribly difficult to develop enough modifiers or achieve an instance of advantage on something to completely cancel out any disadvantage. Lets be honest here, most people tend to seek advantage whenever they get the opportunity anyway.

It can certainly be annoying, but its not permanent. You must have had an exceptionally bad experience with exhaustion before.




> Honestly the severity of lingering injuries is incredibly swingy, but likely no where near as much of a death spiral as stacking exhaustion is.


However, I agree with this. Once it starts stacking up, stuff can go downhill incredibly fast.

Another note, Ive never actually understood the idea of expecting more than 4 combat encounters per day. Sure, sometimes but theres no reason that should be daily. I think I just have a minority experience on that.

----------


## Kane0

Well, that escalated quickly.

----------


## Mastikator

> Honestly the severity of lingering injuries is incredibly swingy, but likely no where near as much of a death spiral as stacking exhaustion is.
> 
> Losing a limb _sounds_ terrible, but the effects aren't even that bad, and depending on what you lost and what your build is, you might not even notice.
> 
> A spellcaster with a component pouch largely won't care that they only have one arm, a flying PC won't care they only have one foot/leg. Heck, an Aarakocra wouldn't really suffer at all from losing an eye.


You can't really assume that a limb loss will be exactly something your build is unaffected by, it's just as likely to be something everyone but exactly your build is unaffected, but for your character it turns them into a commoner.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> You can't really assume that a limb loss will be exactly something your build is unaffected by, it's just as likely to be something everyone but exactly your build is unaffected, but for your character it turns them into a commoner.


...Except there's literally no way for that to happen. Even if you're built for GWM/PAM and you lose and arm, you still have your hit points and the consolation prize of using a longsword.

Lingering injuries can take the wind out of your sails, or force you to play in a way you didn't originally want to, but none of them would 'turn you into a commoner.'




> It has no affect on *passive checks,* saving throws, or attack rolls. It also isnt terribly difficult to develop enough modifiers or achieve an instance of advantage on something to completely cancel out any disadvantage. Lets be honest here, most people tend to seek advantage whenever they get the opportunity anyway.


If you have disadvantage then you should be applying a -5 modifier to the relevant passive score, but depending what it is and what your starting total was, hardly devastating.




> Another note, Ive never actually understood the idea of expecting more than 4 combat encounters per day. Sure, sometimes but theres no reason that should be daily. I think I just have a minority experience on that.



More than 4 is pushing it IMO for most days, unless you're playing out a lot of small encounters that are breeze-through or in a super combat-heavy game. It can easily go beyond that, however, if you're throwing traps into the mix too.

Dropping to 0 multiple times in a combat would be a severe death spiral for exhaustion on dropping unless a party was really proactive or had good deep healing.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> 4) It's not just Exhaustion, it's Exhaustion + limited Short Rest healing.


  I played a game with the lingering injuries, and we started at level 1.  It was a very jarring change from how the game works normally, and it took us a while to get used to it. My sorcerer had a major injury and I had to roll a DC 15 save to take an action.  Just as we were getting used to that significant change the DM had RL issues and the campaign shut down.  



> If the variants were inside that paradigm, they wouldn't be variants, they would just be the rules.


 Nicely put. 



> Tried Exhaustion, but In my opinion it's a little too over the top in 5e


 Indeed it is.  IMO, one level needs to be removable with Lesser Restoration, (heck it can clear paralysis or poisoned) and three levels with Greater.  Idea being, it costs a resource to deal with.  Had discussed with others the idea of rolling a con save or a HD during SR to try and clear it, have not settled on a best method.  I like the idea behind it, 5e's exhaustion, it's just that the implementation is a bit clunky.  D&Done's approach is a change that unfortunately begins with the never ending +1 or -1 fiddly bits ... which I'd rather they not reintroduce, but it's not a bad path going forward.  



> Permanent limb loss might as well kill the character and make a new one. Exhaustion doesn't even have that mercy.


 As above, if a resource could be expended to remove it, or the con save during an SR maybe, that might be a decent variation.  



> A spellcaster with a component pouch largely won't care that they only have one arm, a flying PC won't care they only have one foot/leg. Heck, an Aarakocra wouldn't really suffer at all from losing an eye.


 And he'd look like a flying pirate, which is by itself a good thing!  :Small Smile:

----------


## Pex

> Yes, _only_ ability checks. Not, as you say, everything:
> 
> 
> It has no affect on passive checks, saving throws, or attack rolls. It also isnt terribly difficult to develop enough modifiers or achieve an instance of advantage on something to completely cancel out any disadvantage. Lets be honest here, most people tend to seek advantage whenever they get the opportunity anyway.
> 
> It can certainly be annoying, but its not permanent. You must have had an exceptionally bad experience with exhaustion before.
> 
> 
> However, I agree with this. Once it starts stacking up, stuff can go downhill incredibly fast.
> ...


I said everything, and I meant everything because the scenario was an Exploration Day. "Everything" didn't mean all game mechanics of the entire game; it meant "everything" the PCs will do that day. Swim a rough river - disadvantage to Athletics. Talk to the strange fey creature - disadvantage on Persuasion. Avoid the owlbears - disadvantage on Stealth. Notice the disguised pit trap - disadvantage on Perception. Offer food to a hungry bear to avoid a fight - disadvantage on Animal Handling. Disadvantage to everything, yes.

Doesn't matter it's not permanent. It's "permanent" enough because that's the entire 4 hour game session. The whole session is unfun time of continuous failure.

----------


## animorte

> I said everything, and I meant everything because the scenario was an Exploration Day. "Everything" didn't mean all game mechanics of the entire game; it meant "everything" the PCs will do that day.


Keep in mind that any PC at any given time struggles to actually participate in *all* of those areas naturally, as evidenced by the countless threads on imbalance of being unable to contribute to all pillars of play equally, or even one.

And if I remember correctly, again, ability checks arent usually directly relevant to combat mechanics. I find it _extremely_ difficult to believe the entire 4 hour session consists of only relevant ability checks and nothing else (aside from the one combat that downed said PC in the first place, which may not even have been the first one).

I mean, I _really do_ understand what youre getting at. It just seems a bit exaggerated, being completely honest.

----------


## Pex

> Keep in mind that any PC at any given time struggles to actually participate in *all* of those areas naturally, as evidenced by the countless threads on imbalance of being unable to contribute to all pillars of play equally, or even one.
> 
> And if I remember correctly, again, ability checks arent usually directly relevant to combat mechanics. I find it _extremely_ difficult to believe the entire 4 hour session consists of only relevant ability checks and nothing else (aside from the one combat that downed said PC in the first place, which may not even have been the first one).
> 
> I mean, I _really do_ understand what youre getting at. It just seems a bit exaggerated, being completely honest.


Been there done that. Even with another combat in the mix it's disadvantage on initiative, disadvantage on Athletics/Acrobatics to avoid grappling, disadvantage on Perception to even notice the ambush or someone entering the fight, etc. 5E exhaustion rules are the worst thing about the game, even worse than skill use. Any rule adding more chances of exhaustion into the game makes the game worse.

It didn't have to be this way. Even keeping the exhaustion rules let a short a rest remove a level of exhaustion. Maybe let spending HD remove exhaustion levels. Let Lesser Restoration remove an exhaustion level and Greater Restoration all exhaustion levels. Let exhaustion be an inconvenience, not cripple the fun of play.

----------


## Sorinth

> Been there done that. Even with another combat in the mix it's disadvantage on initiative, disadvantage on Athletics/Acrobatics to avoid grappling, disadvantage on Perception to even notice the ambush or someone entering the fight, etc. 5E exhaustion rules are the worst thing about the game, even worse than skill use. Any rule adding more chances of exhaustion into the game makes the game worse.
> 
> It didn't have to be this way. Even keeping the exhaustion rules let a short a rest remove a level of exhaustion. Maybe let spending HD remove exhaustion levels. Let Lesser Restoration remove an exhaustion level and Greater Restoration all exhaustion levels. Let exhaustion be an inconvenience, not cripple the fun of play.


Agreed exhaustion is just too big of a penalty for something that is quite difficult to get rid of. The UA rules for exhaustion seem much better in this regard as it's just a cumulative -1 penalty so getting whacked by exhaustion for whatever reason isn't too bad.

----------


## Tanarii

> Any rule adding more chances of exhaustion into the game makes the game worse.


This is making me wonder if there a comprehensive list of things that cause exhaustion around.

----------


## Kane0

Oh, forgot to mention that I also allow _Lesser Restoration_ to remove one level of exhaustion, and _Greater Restoration_ up to three levels of exhaustion.

----------


## Zhorn

> Any rule adding more chances of exhaustion into the game makes the game worse.
> 
> It didn't have to be this way. Even keeping the exhaustion rules let a short a rest remove a level of exhaustion. Maybe let spending HD remove exhaustion levels. Let Lesser Restoration remove an exhaustion level and Greater Restoration all exhaustion levels. Let exhaustion be an inconvenience, not cripple the fun of play.


Indeed. It's one of those areas I tend warn new DM on regularly when they are looking at introducing houserules and homebrew into their games. The playstyle by which you run your games and the rule changes you introduce need to work with one another to achieve a specific goal; not be haphazardly slapped together and working against one another in practice.

In regards to adding levels of exhaustion from hitting 0 hp, there first needs to be an identifiable reason why _that_ specific change in being introduced and how it is goal about achieving the desired goal.
Just going with "healing is too forgiving, not fun for me, and I want it to be harder and more engaging" isn't really explaining why exhaustion is the solution that should be leaned on. Yes, it increases the game difficulty, but not in a way that actively increases engagement, it only increases the punishment aspect of hitting 0 hp.

Similar thing with Lingering Injuries. Having them being more prevalent isn't addressing the root cause of the issue OP is having with 5e's healing, just doubling down on the punishment aspect of character failure (hitting 0 hp).

For Schwann145, reading the OP doesn't sound like 5e's healing system is bad. It's just a bad fit for what you want.
Unoriginal's shovel analogy is a pretty accurate assessment.

If anything, I'd say you would be happier in a game system that didn't use large hp pools and was instead on a very limited wound system. Something were the mechanics of being wounded fit within the overall system without the jarring death spiral that regular levels of exhaustion or lingering injuries does in 5e without ready solutions.

----------


## Schwann145

Exhaustion can indeed be a pretty harsh mechanic, and increasing the ways to alleviate it would be perfectly reasonable to do for a game that makes exhaustion more present.
But falling to death's door _multiple times_ should not be just shrugged off with 1 point of healing magic. There should be consequences for being so flippant and careless with your character's life. Your character doesn't know that healing is crazy-easy, or that the ultimate power of the universe (the DM) is unlikely to punish downed characters because of the vague social contract of, "that's a d*ck move," or any of the other reasons anyone would be comfortable throwing a character into danger over and over despite continuously being brought to zero HP.
"I might need to _actually_ consider defense and/or retreat" is just not a very compelling position against exhaustion, IMO.

Moreover, people who enjoy the support playstyle deserve to have meaningful play. Currently, a dedicated healer just isn't necessary or meaningful; anyone with access to a healing spell and a revivification spell will get the job done very well. Just as much as forcing a dedicated healer was bad for the game in the past, doing the exact opposite and making a dedicated healer meaningless is also bad for the game.




> Oh, forgot to mention that I also allow _Lesser Restoration_ to remove one level of exhaustion, and _Greater Restoration_ up to three levels of exhaustion.


I'm frankly surprised _Lesser Restoration_ doesn't already do that in the core rules, tbh.

----------


## Dork_Forge

*shrug* If exhaustion is too easy to get rid of then it loses it's status as a meaningful penalty, especially as other parts of the game's powercreep come into focus. Like Lesser Restoration is only a 2nd level spell, and two of the classes that can prepare it now have a way of burning their Channel Divinity to fuel more spell slots, making it easier to keep the entire party exhaustion free. I also don't personally like it, because such low level magic making exhaustion moot has world implications that I'd rather not ignore or deal with.

I do think that using it as a penalty for dropping to 0 can get out of hand, that's why my version allows the 1st time to go away on a short rest (unless you stack higher than 1). Though I don't get the whole 'exhaustion is too severe' undertones as a general statement, it ramps up, it's meaningful, and for the most part you have to really make a lot of mistakes/ be very unlucky to really suffer from it in default 5E.

----------


## animorte

> Though I don't get the whole 'exhaustion is too severe' undertones as a general statement, it ramps up, it's meaningful, and for the most part you have to really make a lot of mistakes/ be very unlucky to really suffer from it in default 5E.


This is kind of what Im trying to say. If the first level of exhaustion is so extreme for some people that it completely ruins everything for a character (and death is somehow better?), why ever use it in the first place? Maybe the people who feel its far too fatal have been subjected to the extremes of it one too many times.

In my personal experience, it doesnt really show up nearly as much as all that. Sure, if there are environmental circumstances or excess travel, maybe sleep was interrupted. The story probably has a purpose for it.

Im not saying I do this just to get the better of people, but its one of the many challenges within the game. Sometimes it creates immersion. Its nicer if the players actually care about the well-being of their PCs.

----------


## Kane0

> Exhaustion can indeed be a pretty harsh mechanic, and increasing the ways to alleviate it would be perfectly reasonable to do for a game that makes exhaustion more present.
> But falling to death's door _multiple times_ should not be just shrugged off with 1 point of healing magic. There should be consequences for being so flippant and careless with your character's life.


As I raised in my first post, i only do the exhaustion for magical healing from 0. So the Healer feat is desirable even without being a thief rogue and compared to the likes of life clerics, celestial warlocks and dreams druids. They can of course counteract the exhaustion with lesser restoration, or opt to use stronger rather than faster heals which hopefully means the healee wont immediately get dropped again thanks to spending some hit dice on top of the spells healing

Edit: in my games this has led to bonus action magical healing being primarily used to recover and top up prior to dropping to 0, and the 'real heals' being broken out once someone drops to avoid more than one or two levels of exhaustion, or deliberately setting aside a 2nd level slot for a restoration if they judge the situation to be low enough a threat. We typically dont see paladins healing for 1 HP.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I'm frankly surprised _Lesser Restoration_ doesn't already do that in the core rules, tbh.


 Maybe trying to keep some "grittiness" in the game without thinking it through? 



> *shrug* If exhaustion is too easy to get rid of then it loses it's status as a meaningful penalty,


 That isn't true in Tier 1 and early Tier 2 where a 2d level spell used for that can't be used for something else. (Not presuming 5 minute adventure day).  Also, not every party has a cleric or a druid.   



> two of the classes that can prepare it now have a way of burning their Channel Divinity to fuel more spell slots, making it easier to keep the entire party exhaustion free.


 It's still a resource cost, an opportunity cost.  If you spend it on that, you can't spend it on something else.  



> I also don't personally like it, because such low level magic making exhaustion moot has world implications that I'd rather not ignore or deal with.


 ?? That may be related to "high magic, low magic, somewhere in between magic" in the setting.  A second level spell that _can remove paralysis_ is pretty powerful magic.  



> I do think that using it as a penalty for dropping to 0 can get out of hand, that's why my version allows the 1st time to go away on a short rest (unless you stack higher than 1).


 Not a bad adjustment. 



> Though I don't get the whole 'exhaustion is too severe' undertones as a general statement, it ramps up, it's meaningful, and for the most part you have to really make a lot of mistakes/ be very unlucky to really suffer from it in default 5E.


 My take is not that it is too severe, it's that only a long rest removes one.  And nothing else.  (Until level 5 spells show up).   We had a DM teleport us into a hot, humid jungle.  We were having to make con saves every hour or suffer a level of exhaustion.  Can you see what's coming?  Yeah, when my unarmored Monk got to exhaustion level four, she climbed into a tree and told the rest of the party that she wasn't going anywhere until she'd recovered a bit, and she will now only travel at night.  
Level 6 exhaustion is 'dead monk, re roll' (This campaign was ongoing before Xanathar's came out, basically PHB/MM/DMG only campaign with No vHumans allowed by DM).  

That put a bit of a cramp in the party sticking together (with six people) since there is no way to remove even one outside of a long rest.   We were third level.   There was no resource we could expend or sacrifice to deal with this.   
It's a crap mechanic-exhaustion removal, not exhaustion itself. Won't belabor the obvious on Frenzy/Berserker Barbarian. 

And it's abusable.   A while back, my celestial warlock and the party wizard pulled off the sickening radiance/wall of force combo on a dragon - I convinced him to ready an action to cast wall of force when I cast sickening radiance.  I promised the DM we won't do that again.  It was cool once... (There's a thread on that somewhere)... ten minutes of making a con save every six seconds ... burned through the legendary saves and then it was a matter of the dice taking care of the rest.
If you want to TPK a party, that's a trivially easy way to do it with a pair of NPC spell casters.

----------


## Easy e

I do not fear hit point loss at all, but I do fear exhaustion as a player.  

My personal stance is that Hit Points in all games suck, and much prefer attritional condition boxes where when a box gets filled in, you start facing consequences.  

I think a game that straddles this is some versions of Legend of the Five Rings, where you can take so many HP of damage before filling in a condition box that leads to consequences.  There are about 6-10 (Do not recall) condition boxes before you are dead, but each box is worth a number of HP based on stats.  

Therefore, if you have a Earth ring of 3, you can take 6 HP per box.  A hit from a Katana causes say 15 damage, so you have two condition boxes filled up.  Next time, you take another 12 and fill up two more boxes, for 4 out of 10 boxes filled.  Each boxes causes mods for injury level to make things harder.  

A system like this could easily be modded into a 5E D&D system if the DM/Players wanted.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Therefore, if you have a Earth ring of 3, you can take 6 HP per box.  A hit from a Katana causes say 15 damage, so you have two condition boxes filled up.  Next time, you take another 12 and fill up two more boxes, for 4 out of 10 boxes filled.  Each boxes causes mods for injury level to make things harder.  
> 
> A system like this could easily be modded into a 5E D&D system if the DM/Players wanted.


Something similar in Blades in the Dark with stress and trauma and harm, but stress is recoverable with healing or indulging in a vice ... I like the idea of burning one HD to enable a DC 15 Con Save (and maybe add 1 or more the CON save DC for each level of exhaustion) or, if you are at three, you have to burn three HD to remove that third level, 2 more for that 2d level ... Still thinking... it is easy to get too fiddly for stuff like this.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> That isn't true in Tier 1 and early Tier 2 where a 2d level spell used for that can't be used for something else. (Not presuming 5 minute adventure day).  Also, not every party has a cleric or a druid.


A 2nd level spell can always be used for something else, but this is a shortcut. If a player is so scared or affronted by being exhausted, then it is a relatively cheap way of fixing that. My opinion on this would be different if Lesser Restoration took like 10 minutes or an hour to cast, it would reduce it's convenience as a shortcut. However, that would make it pretty useless for it's RAW purpose.

You also don't need a Cleric or Druid, Lesser Restoration is an *incredibly* available spell. Full list:

3rd level access:

-Bard
-Cleric
-Druid
-Sorcerer (Either Divine Soul or Clockwork Soul)
-Warlock (Celestial)

5th level access

-Artificer
-Paladin
-Ranger

That's 6 out of 13 classes that can just grab it, 8 if you include the Warlock and Sorcerer (the latter even has multiple options for grabbing it). 

Then you have the curve ball stuff, the kind of knock on effects when you make a change and don't see something else it affects, namely in this case the Alchemist Artificer. At 9th level they can cast Lesser Restoration up to their Int mod per long rest without slots or even needing to prepare it. That distorts the entire mechanic into uselessness.




> It's still a resource cost, an opportunity cost.  If you spend it on that, you can't spend it on something else.


That's entirely true, as it is of the majority of spellcasting. My point was to connect how rules can make this kind of thing cheaper than it would have been originally in the core rules. I was trying to point out that as more things are published, there are more pieces to keep track of as you make your own homebrew changes.




> ?? That may be related to "high magic, low magic, somewhere in between magic" in the setting.  A second level spell that _can remove paralysis_ is pretty powerful magic.


This was just a misunderstanding, I meant 'low level' magic literally, as in you can grab it at 3rd level and it's only a 2nd level spell, not that it wasn't a powerful effect.

If you have such a low barrier to entry for removing exhaustion, then that would have world-bending implications. Why would a paranoid tyrant ever sleep when their pet Bard just rejuvenates them every morning? A 3rd level Bard wouldn't be considered a particularly powerful NPC, as far as NPC casting goes 2nd level casting is Cult Fanatic level, but it can be utterly warping with this kind of add on effect. That kind of thing.




> Not a bad adjustment.


Thanks! I was going for 'stuff happens, the game should be more fun than punishment' whilst still making it clear that pop-up healing is not cheese that makes this  charcuterie board.

For reference, that's part of my 'hardcore' rules, for players that want the added difficulty, not something I push upon everyone.




> My take is not that it is too severe, it's that only a long rest removes one.  And nothing else.  (Until level 5 spells show up).   We had a DM teleport us into a hot, humid jungle.  We were having to make con saves every hour or suffer a level of exhaustion.  Can you see what's coming?  Yeah, when my unarmored Monk got to exhaustion level four, she climbed into a tree and told the rest of the party that she wasn't going anywhere until she'd recovered a bit, and she will now only travel at night.  
> Level 6 exhaustion is 'dead monk, re roll' (This campaign was ongoing before Xanathar's came out, basically PHB/MM/DMG only campaign with No vHumans allowed by DM).  
> 
> That put a bit of a cramp in the party sticking together (with six people) since there is no way to remove even one outside of a long rest.   We were third level.   There was no resource we could expend or sacrifice to deal with this.   
> It's a crap mechanic-exhaustion removal, not exhaustion itself. Won't belabor the obvious on Frenzy/Berserker Barbarian.


Uhh, I'm going to have to throw that one on the DM, that's a horrific punishment. That was actual the exact same rule (Con save every hour of travel) I lifted from BG:DiA for my homebrew, but that seemed reasonable for *traversing hell.* That, and the players were either level 9 or 10 at that point. Level 3 characters should never have been put in that position imo.




> And it's abusable.   A while back, my celestial warlock and the party wizard pulled off the sickening radiance/wall of force combo on a dragon - I convinced him to ready an action to cast wall of force when I cast sickening radiance.  I promised the DM we won't do that again.  It was cool once... (There's a thread on that somewhere)... ten minutes of making a con save every six seconds ... burned through the legendary saves and then it was a matter of the dice taking care of the rest.
> If you want to TPK a party, that's a trivially easy way to do it with a pair of NPC spell casters.


Ah, to me this is more on Wall of Force being ridiculous than anything else, I often don't consider these kinds of things, because it's the kind of strategy that my games don't see. Whilst sure it's legal, it's... like kicking someone in the crotch when rough housing. Is it effective? Sure is, but is it fun? Not for the one getting kicked.

The key part of that is once kicking someone in the crotch happens, it's on the table for both sides, and one side has far more power to exert that kind of thing.

This may be the weirdest post I've made that could be taken out of context.

----------


## Witty Username

So we have two options broadly speaking:
-Reducing the power of rest healing
Long rests and short rests render most healing options redundant, reducing the stuff on the end means there is more reason to use other options, this does lead to the 'healer required' issue, but that is more the time of recovery than anything
-Improving the quality of healing spells
Use the pre nerf healing spirit, and provide in-combat options between 1st and 6th level. This could make for low tension games, but I would agrue healing is much weaker than available mitigation options.

Keep in mind that adventurers are expected to be at full health at the start of combat, from a design perspective and dev expectation according to JC.

----------


## Tanarii

> Yes, _only_ ability checks. Not, as you say, everything:


Only on ability checks is such a severe penalty that players _in a combat heavy campaign_ will avoid exhaustion like the plague.  Based on person experience with dozens of players in an open table campaign.

Case in point, that I can recall I've only ever seen players willing to exceed the Dash action limit and risk the DC check to avoid exhaustion once or twice.  Every ... other ... time ... they just stop using Dash, even if it means the enemies get away.

----------


## animorte

> Case in point, that I can recall I've only ever seen players willing to exceed the Dash action limit and risk the DC check to avoid exhaustion once or twice.  Every ... other ... time ... they just stop using Dash, even if it means the enemies get away.


Thats simple logic. Dont _intentionally_ give yourself a penalty, if you can help it. Especially if your own PCs life isnt at stake.

----------


## Witty Username

> It has no affect on passive checks, saving throws, or attack rolls.


Passive checks are affected by exhaustion, Passive checks get -5 if made with disadvantage, +5 with advantage.
So passive perception with exhaustion level 1 will make it much more likely for an ambush to be successful, for example.

On Pop up healing:
Pop-up healing, using healing on a 0 hp, character, is useful healing because it always increases the number of actions to drop the character (even if that is 1). Generally, healing in combat is not worth it unless it does this. Why pop-up healing is seen frequently is a symptom of healing being largely irrelevant to the game, as monster damage quickly outstrips healing, even a large sink of healing, like heal, may only last a couple rounds of combat, cure wounds and healing word are only useful in the context of pop-up due to how low the amount is. 

We have 2 healing contexts:
Emergency healing - 1 action cast, used for in combat, and other taking damage threats
Recovery - 1 minute or more casting time, used to restore HP to safe levels

For emergency healing to be useful, it needs to rob monsters of actions(or rather attacks, since multiattack is a thing) in terms of amount, this is because the healer is spending actions to use them. Pop up healing means this is possible with 1 point of healing, but out side this it should start about  10 average and scale to something like 30 by Tier 2. Generally for this to matter, healing would need to be much stronger than it currently is.

On Recovery healing:
Recovery healing options, by necessity must be more powerful than in combat options or they don't get taken. And needs to provide benefits that are not invalidated by the rest mechanics. Spells like prayer of healing are simply not powerful enough to justify, short resting provides so much more gains in terms of ability recovery and healing there is no reason to use it. I would say as a rule of thumb, a out of combat recovery spell should be able to full heal a character at the level aquired. So for a 1st level spell, 10 hp average is reasonable. For a 2nd level spell more like 20-30, per character. Higher level spells should scale primarily by number of people affected and reduced considerations like concentration.

----------


## animorte

> Passive checks are affected by exhaustion, Passive checks get -5 if made with disadvantage, +5 with advantage.
> So passive perception with exhaustion level 1 will make it much more likely for an ambush to be successful, for example.


Haha, yeah its been pointed out. Something my memory overlooked.

----------


## Sorinth

> So we have two options broadly speaking:
> -Reducing the power of rest healing
> Long rests and short rests render most healing options redundant, reducing the stuff on the end means there is more reason to use other options, this does lead to the 'healer required' issue, but that is more the time of recovery than anything
> -Improving the quality of healing spells
> Use the pre nerf healing spirit, and provide in-combat options between 1st and 6th level. This could make for low tension games, but I would agrue healing is much weaker than available mitigation options.
> 
> Keep in mind that adventurers are expected to be at full health at the start of combat, from a design perspective and dev expectation according to JC.


In terms of improving healing spells, if you are worried about more healing making combat less tense then don't improve the spells by giving more HP restored but instead by granting other temporary bonuses. For example, imagine if when you upcast Cure Wounds the target also gains an inspiration die. Now there's an incentive to use CW mid-fight even if someone isn't in danger of dropping to 0.

----------


## Pex

I still find in combat healing useful. The amount of healing available could use a boost, but keeping PCs up not to lose their actions is a worthy goal, even if it means for one turn losing the healer's action because he's healing instead of doing something else. It depends on circumstances. It's also a gamble. It's a net win for after someone gets healed the bad guys attacking that someone misses on their next attack. They would have missed anyway, but the healed PC has those hit points as insurance for future rounds of attack that hit.

However, what it comes to, for me cynically, is pop-up healing is only really a problem for DMs. Why should a DM be bothered by this? He wants to kill PCs? The bad guys are supposed to lose anyway, semi-facetiously speaking. PCs don't like dropping in the first place because it's an aesthetic feel of loss plus they lose their turn to do stuff. They want to be healed in combat. That matters for the sake of playing the game. However, should they drop anyway they want to get back into the game as fast as possible. It has everything to do with wanting to play the game, not realism. The fun is playing the game, doing something on your turn in the combat, and eventually winning that hard fought fight. Recovery healing is to get ready for the next one.

No, pop-up healing is not a problem to be discouraged. Let the DM boast the bad guys can do it too. We already know. The bad guys can have a healer too. Players will gladly double-tap the bad guys to prevent their healers bringing them back.

----------


## Witty Username

> In terms of improving healing spells, if you are worried about more healing making combat less tense then don't improve the spells by giving more HP restored but instead by granting other temporary bonuses. For example, imagine if when you upcast Cure Wounds the target also gains an inspiration die. Now there's an incentive to use CW mid-fight even if someone isn't in danger of dropping to 0.


I should clarify, I don't have this issue so much as I have heard others voice it.

I personally find healing is outperformed by existing mitigation options, spells that disable opponents or create obstacles for example, that rob actions of enemies to be substantially more effective. So healing could be substantially improved without causing issues. 

Secondary riders could be fun though, my first thoughts are temp hp and healing, or aid style effects. Or buffs that come with small regeneration effects.

----------


## Kane0

Once of prevention, pound of cure

----------


## Azuresun

> Moreover, people who enjoy the support playstyle deserve to have meaningful play. Currently, a dedicated healer just isn't necessary or meaningful; anyone with access to a healing spell and a revivification spell will get the job done very well. Just as much as forcing a dedicated healer was bad for the game in the past, doing the exact opposite and making a dedicated healer meaningless is also bad for the game.


"Support" also covers buffing spells and powers, and condition removal.

----------


## Sorinth

> I should clarify, I don't have this issue so much as I have heard others voice it.
> 
> I personally find healing is outperformed by existing mitigation options, spells that disable opponents or create obstacles for example, that rob actions of enemies to be substantially more effective. So healing could be substantially improved without causing issues. 
> 
> Secondary riders could be fun though, my first thoughts are temp hp and healing, or aid style effects. Or buffs that come with small regeneration effects.


Well keep in mind disabling opponents usually means a saving throw, healing is automatic, so it's normal that healing would be behind control options since some of the time the control option does nothing. My personal feeling is the amount of HP healing does is mostly fine, some spells could maybe use a tweak but nothing major. Having some secondary riders whatever their form would make things a bit more interesting/competitive.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

Is part of the issue not that in combat Healing is undertuned, but some spells are overtuned to the point that they're just better in so many situations?  There are other examples I could point to, but POLYMORPH, I'm looking at you here.

I say this for a couple of reasons, but in part due to reading what others have written here has convinced me that on paper healing isn't bad.  However, at my table, besides pop-up Healing Word, it mostly doesn't get used.  Lay on Hands gets used (say 50 hp for an action at 10th level), but Polymorph is probably the default tactic when available.

----------


## Witty Username

> Is part of the issue not that in combat Healing is undertuned, but some spells are overtuned to the point that they're just better in so many situations?  There are other examples I could point to, but POLYMORPH, I'm looking at you here.
> 
> I say this for a couple of reasons, but in part due to reading what others have written here has convinced me that on paper healing isn't bad.  However, at my table, besides pop-up Healing Word, it mostly doesn't get used.  Lay on Hands gets used (say 50 hp for an action at 10th level), but Polymorph is probably the default tactic when available.


Keep in mind that most healing spells at that level hover around healing about half that, even healing spirit in its heyday was only averaging 35 hp with a second level slot.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Keep in mind that most healing spells at that level hover around healing about half that, even healing spirit in its heyday was only averaging 35 hp with a second level slot.


But at 10th level, you've only got that one 50 pt lay on hands all day. 2nd level slots are, if not nothing, comparatively cheap.

----------


## Witty Username

> But at 10th level, you've only got that one 50 pt lay on hands all day. 2nd level slots are, if not nothing, comparatively cheap.


That is 2 different points in one paragraph.

Take for example a 5th level cure wounds, that will heal about 30 hp (it's actually 27.5 average, for those that want specificity). That sounds like a extreme example (upcasting a 1st level spell isn't normally the reference point for this) but that is actually the best we have at 10th level.

Healing spirit is more for reference, considered dangerously OP, and it still needed upcasting to get over lay on hands numbers. It's to show that lay on hands is an outlier, not the norm.

Either healing is fine, and lay on hands is an outlier (possibly OP), or lay on hands is fair and other options are undertuned.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> On Pop up healing:
> Pop-up healing, using healing on a 0 hp, character, is useful healing because it always increases the number of actions to drop the character (even if that is 1). Generally, healing in combat is not worth it unless it does this. Why pop-up healing is seen frequently is a symptom of healing being largely irrelevant to the game, as monster damage quickly outstrips healing, even a large sink of healing, like heal, may only last a couple rounds of combat, cure wounds and healing word are only useful in the context of pop-up due to how low the amount is.


This is missing some nuance, depending on initiative order pop up healing can turn into a death spiral if left unchecked, where a PC is reduced to picking their allies up, but said allies drop before anything can be done.

This is an issue that one of my groups sometimes has to get themselves out of, where the Paladin can get caught in healing mode if the Bard is sufficiently threatened or neutralized/multiple allies go down. Pop up healing is only particularly effective when initiative is favourable, otherwise it's an easy way to burn  actions and resources.

We have 2 healing contexts:
Emergency healing - 1 action cast, used for in combat, and other taking damage threats
Recovery - 1 minute or more casting time, used to restore HP to safe levels




> For emergency healing to be useful, it needs to rob monsters of actions(or rather attacks, since multiattack is a thing) in terms of amount, this is because the healer is spending actions to use them. Pop up healing means this is possible with 1 point of healing, but out side this it should start about  10 average and scale to something like 30 by Tier 2. Generally for this to matter, healing would need to be much stronger than it currently is.


Got to disagree with the amount here, you don't need to do 30HP to make healing worthwhile in Tier 2, and that's without considering any self-healing or damage mitigation the PC in question may have.




> On Recovery healing:
> Recovery healing options, by necessity must be more powerful than in combat options or they don't get taken. And needs to provide benefits that are not invalidated by the rest mechanics. Spells like prayer of healing are simply not powerful enough to justify, short resting provides so much more gains in terms of ability recovery and healing there is no reason to use it. I would say as a rule of thumb, a out of combat recovery spell should be able to full heal a character at the level aquired. So for a 1st level spell, 10 hp average is reasonable. For a 2nd level spell more like 20-30, per character. Higher level spells should scale primarily by number of people affected and reduced considerations like concentration.


This makes no sense to me, spells in this category are typically used (at least ime) when you can't short rest. Prayer of Healing is a good amount of healing for a 2nd level slot, but I'm primarily not seeing the logic behind 'may as well short rest' when a short rest is significantly longer than PoH.

I understand some people adhere to 'if you have 10 minutes you normally have an hour' or some such but... I've never seen that to be true, situations where an hour is clearly safe result in resting, not casting.




> I still find in combat healing useful. The amount of healing available could use a boost, but keeping PCs up not to lose their actions is a worthy goal, even if it means for one turn losing the healer's action because he's healing instead of doing something else. It depends on circumstances. It's also a gamble. It's a net win for after someone gets healed the bad guys attacking that someone misses on their next attack. They would have missed anyway, but the healed PC has those hit points as insurance for future rounds of attack that hit.
> 
> However, what it comes to, for me cynically, is pop-up healing is only really a problem for DMs. Why should a DM be bothered by this? He wants to kill PCs? The bad guys are supposed to lose anyway, semi-facetiously speaking. PCs don't like dropping in the first place because it's an aesthetic feel of loss plus they lose their turn to do stuff. They want to be healed in combat. That matters for the sake of playing the game. However, should they drop anyway they want to get back into the game as fast as possible. It has everything to do with wanting to play the game, not realism. The fun is playing the game, doing something on your turn in the combat, and eventually winning that hard fought fight. Recovery healing is to get ready for the next one.
> 
> No, pop-up healing is not a problem to be discouraged. Let the DM boast the bad guys can do it too. We already know. The bad guys can have a healer too. Players will gladly double-tap the bad guys to prevent their healers bringing them back.


Pop up healing is an issue because it's incredibly 'gamey' and can really mess with difficulty because of how swingy the effects can be.  

I get you like to advocate for player power, but as a DM not only do I not like the idea thematically of pop up healing (and as a player I find it sub-par), the notion of giving monsters death saves with any regularity sounds awful, nevermind balancing an encounter where enemy healing is a thing.

Advocating for a DM to do more work or change encounter design doesn't seem like a good solution imo.




> I personally find healing is outperformed by existing mitigation options, spells that disable opponents or create obstacles for example, that rob actions of enemies to be substantially more effective. So healing could be substantially improved without causing issues.


You need to remember the guaranteed use of healing vs those other options, but also that healing needs to co-exist with them. If you find no issue currently because of those other options, then increasing healing would just stack on top of that to make the game even easier?




> Is part of the issue not that in combat Healing is undertuned, but some spells are overtuned to the point that they're just better in so many situations?  There are other examples I could point to, but POLYMORPH, I'm looking at you here.
> 
> I say this for a couple of reasons, but in part due to reading what others have written here has convinced me that on paper healing isn't bad.  However, at my table, besides pop-up Healing Word, it mostly doesn't get used.  Lay on Hands gets used (say 50 hp for an action at 10th level), but Polymorph is probably the default tactic when available.


This isn't as much of an issue at my tables, by Polymorph does come up, and it's an atrocious spell that should never have been approved as it is.




> Keep in mind that most healing spells at that level hover around healing about half that, even healing spirit in its heyday was only averaging 35 hp with a second level slot.


This isn't the first time this has come up, but why on Earth is healing at 7th level+ using a 2nd level spell at it's base level?

And considering that the spell out strips player HP at the level it comes online... what should it have been doing?




> But at 10th level, you've only got that one 50 pt lay on hands all day. 2nd level slots are, if not nothing, comparatively cheap.


Excellent point.




> That is 2 different points in one paragraph.
> 
> Take for example a 5th level cure wounds, that will heal about 30 hp (it's actually 27.5 average, for those that want specificity). That sounds like a extreme example (upcasting a 1st level spell isn't normally the reference point for this) but that is actually the best we have at 10th level.
> 
> Healing spirit is more for reference, considered dangerously OP, and it still needed upcasting to get over lay on hands numbers. It's to show that lay on hands is an outlier, not the norm.
> 
> Either healing is fine, and lay on hands is an outlier (possibly OP), or lay on hands is fair and other options are undertuned.


I don't get why you're pointing to Lay on Hands, it's a long rest resource dedicated to healing that consumes a decent amount of the Paladin's design space. Sure, you can dump all of the points at once for a massive heal, I've never seen a Paladin actually do that, but you could. Then you'd have nothing left for the rest of the day. 

Comparing any single spell to LoH is a horrible comparison to make, they're completely different mechanics.

And I'm just going to point out that no, you're not out of luck for healing at 10th level. You've been using the old Healing Spirit, well I'll use the new one, which should be horrible nerfed, right?

4th level casting (+5 Wis) = 4d6*6= *84 HP total*

...That doesn't look bad at all. And considering the spell will auto pick up downed players, whilst giving the party some autonomy in their healing, it's pretty darned good.

For some reason it's really common for people to linger on using Cure Wounds or something like that and just upcasting it. _Cure Wounds' job isn't to be your one-stop healing spell for all 20 levels._

And, wild notion here, 'good' healing should be largely restricted to actual healing specialists. If you set the floor at 'good' then the specialists become straight-up unhinged.

----------


## Witty Username

> For some reason it's really common for people to linger on using Cure Wounds or something like that and just upcasting it. _Cure Wounds' job isn't to be your one-stop healing spell for all 20 levels._


Alright, let's to a mild thought experiment, name 1 spell with the following criteria:
Of 5th level or lower
-casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action
-is not a concentration spell
- heals more to a single creature, than Cure Wounds using a 5th level slot

There happens to be exactly 1 spell that fits this requirement, your hint, it is on the wizard list.

Now this may seem heavily restrictive, but for comparison, name a spell with the following criteria:
-Of 5th level or lower
-casting time of 1 action or bonus action
-is not a concentration spell
- deals more damage to a single creature than chromatic Orb using a 5th level slot

----------


## Goobahfish

> In my game I added this house rule: _When you are reduced to 0 hit points and not outright killed you gain 1 level of exhaustion. This exhaustion is removed when you finish a long or short rest at full HP._
> Then I added the exhaustion rules verbatim from the experts UA playtest (each level of exhaustion = -1 to d20 tests and spell DCs, at level 10 you die, recover 1 per long rest).


So I think this solutions solves the wrong problem?

Apart from creating a death-spiral kind of mechanic, it only provides a secondary incentive to avoid being 'near zero' exchanging it for 'enough above zero'.

As mentioned in another thread, I separated out two kinds of HP, Stamina and Vitality. Stamina is recovered after every short rest, is healed by healing magic and potions. Vitality is only healed through bed-rest. Spells which do affect vitality increase the effectiveness of bed-rest.

Stamina is always lost first, Vitality second and Vitality can go negative. Having negative vitality makes you roll for injuries which are either semi-permanent or permanent.

Effect #1. Once you reach the 'zero stamina' point, players get nervous about losing vitality as it is hard to recover.
Effect #2. Even if you lose vitality, if you rest, you are good to go for another fight (usually) or at least reasonably OK.
Effect #3. Players often start fights 'not on full HP'.
Effect #4. No one wants to yo-yo.
Effect #5. No obvious death-spiral. Losing vitality is 'bad' but it isn't fatal. If your negative vitality plus positive stamina gets you above zero, you will wake up after the fight.

It has worked pretty well so far. The main problem I see with 5e healing is that it is either unlimited (i.e., infinite spells => infinite health) or non-existent (zero spells => zero healing). So the main resource management ends up being around spell slots rather than actual HP?

----------


## Kane0

> As mentioned in another thread, I separated out two kinds of HP, Stamina and Vitality. Stamina is recovered after every short rest, is healed by healing magic and potions. Vitality is only healed through bed-rest. Spells which do affect vitality increase the effectiveness of bed-rest.


Small hiccup, Cure Wounds and related become misleadingly-named (like Chill Touch) as they no longer in fact address injuries but rather fatigue.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Alright, let's to a mild thought experiment, name 1 spell with the following criteria:
> Of 5th level or lower
> -casting time of 1 action or 1 bonus action
> -is not a concentration spell
> - heals more to a single creature, than Cure Wounds using a 5th level slot
> 
> There happens to be exactly 1 spell that fits this requirement, your hint, it is on the wizard list.
> 
> Now this may seem heavily restrictive, but for comparison, name a spell with the following criteria:
> ...


So your response to "Cure Wounds' job isn't to be your one-stop healing spell for all 20 levels." is to arbitrarily choose a level and apply a bunch of restrictions?

You're looking for a single target nova heal spell and making the false equivalence of comparing to damaging spells. However, big surge healing is not what most healing spells are about. Most are about spreading healing around, or over time healing. Aura of Vitality can stem a PC's hit point loss enough to survive what would normally kill them, but that wouldn't count because you've set arbitrary limitations.

But here's the thing, the higher the level you are the more hit points you have, the more hitpoints you have the more buffer you have to act preemptively with healing. Even then, an upcast Cure Wounds heals enough to shrug off a couple of blows, if not more. Most things you fight won't do damage in massive chunks.

So what about healing then, what about times when you need more than that? Well ignoring the fact that you arbitrarily picked the level before Heal becomes available, *this is what classes and subclasses are for.*

What heals more than an upcast Cure Wounds? The same darn thing cast by a:

- Life Cleric

- Fire Druid

- Stars Druid

- Shepherd Druid

- Alchemist Artificer

Or if you want to achieve greater healing to a single target in a turn then:

- Paladin Lay on Hands dumps

- Celestial Warlock double heal

- Dreams Druid double heal

Overall a fairly large list, that was just on the top of my head, but illustrates pretty well that the buck for healing doesn't stop with spell lists. I'll reiterate my point from earlier, a good healer didn't just pick x spell, they have a feature to make it better. 



A slight aside but I think this is most certainly relevant:

The design of the game clearly indicates that the general scaling for healing, which isn't supported by other features, is that the raw number goes up minorly, but you get more bang for your buck. This is either by hitting multiple creatures (any of the Mass spells, Prayer of Healing, Peace Cleric CD etc.) or giving you a pool to divide out, sometimes across multiple actions (Life Cleric, Lay on Hands, Aura of Vitality). It isn't until 11th level, I'm sure it's a coincidence that is also a tier change, that the game decides to throw out a nova heal option, in recognition of the severe levels of damage that are possible from creatures you will more likely face from then on.

----------


## Witty Username

> You're looking for a single target nova heal spell and making the false equivalence of comparing to damaging spells. However, big surge healing is not what most healing spells are about. Most are about spreading healing around, or over time healing. Aura of Vitality can stem a PC's hit point loss enough to survive what would normally kill them, but that wouldn't count because you've set arbitrary limitations.


Spreading healing around requires multiple party members to be taking damage which makes it situational (generally dependent on encounter type and positioning, with from my standpoint the usual being damage pooling on 1 to 2 characters that form the frontline), and over time healing requires, well, time, which makes it difficult to rely on in combat as most encounters can easily do damage in excess of the healing ticks. 7 hp (an average aura of Vitality tick), will in alot of cases not even block an outright kill by CR 5+ enemies, and usually our goal with healing would be to be to prevent dropping to 0, not kills, which will only matter if given time to accrue, which isnt usually the case for encounters where healing is warranted. And that is assuming you can maintain concentration, which if you are burning one of your top slots on healing, doesn't bode well. Outside of combat, they do matter from a recovery standpoint, which is how I think of them.

Generally, in combat, you only want a 1 action or 1 bonus action investment, and that investment to keep the target from dropping, or dying. And in that context, healing spells are worth, about 1 attack for an on CR threat, currently, sometimes 2 for some multi attack lines. Until 11th level, where heal is closer to a full action, sometimes 2.

----------


## Kane0

One of the reasons i like the 'tack on hit dice' solution is that it isnt strictly an improvement in terms of resource pools and expenditure while still allowing the amount healing to be better tailored to the situation. Well unless you are running only one or two combats that day, in which case it actually lets you use your hit dice when otherwise youd never get to since you have a no-shortrest workday.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Spreading healing around requires multiple party members to be taking damage which makes it situational (generally dependent on encounter type and positioning, with from my standpoint the usual being damage pooling on 1 to 2 characters that form the frontline), and over time healing requires, well, time, which makes it difficult to rely on in combat as most encounters can easily do damage in excess of the healing ticks. 7 hp (an average aura of Vitality tick), will in alot of cases not even block an outright kill by CR 5+ enemies, and usually our goal with healing would be to be to prevent dropping to 0, not kills, which will only matter if given time to accrue, which isnt usually the case for encounters where healing is warranted. And that is assuming you can maintain concentration, which if you are burning one of your top slots on healing, doesn't bode well. Outside of combat, they do matter from a recovery standpoint, which is how I think of them.


I'm not really seeing system issues here, but I am seeing a particular type of table play...


Yes it depends on multiple people being injured, if a combat is threatening enough that healing is warranted at all, yet somehow the damage is solely confined to the 'frontline' then I can only ask what encounters are constantly creating that dynamic. That can only exist if a DM allows it, which means consistent terrain and monster behaviour that prevents attacking the 'back line' with no ambushes, ranged attacks, AoEs etc. Yes, if you're playing a game where one or two big meaty monsters are contempt to just wail on 1 or 2 characters whilst everyone else is unmolested, then you want nova healing. That should not be the norm, and even if it was, I've already pointed at nova healing to cater to it.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with some of this. *If a creature you're fighting is capable of outright killing you with damage then healing doesn't matter because your hit point total wasn't high enough to survive a single hit.*

But let's also be real clear here, whiterooms don't exist at tables. You are healing a character with their own abilities, sampling:

- Fighter? Second Wind
- Barbarian? Likely resistant, potentially additional defenses
- Rogue? Uncanny Dodge, potentially other defenses
- Paladin? They can take care of their own healing, and potentially other defenses
- Ranger? Self heal and potentially other defenses

You would bust out AoV in a tough fight where you're going to need to be bringing people up repeatedly, or you're actively topping up hit points to prevent them from getting into the dangerzone to begin with, which also assumes nothing but a naked spell.

You also seem to be saying that encounters that are more lethal aren't as likely to drag on? What?




> Generally, in combat, you only want a 1 action or 1 bonus action investment, and that investment to keep the target from dropping, or dying. And in that context, healing spells are worth, about 1 attack for an on CR threat, currently, sometimes 2 for some multi attack lines. Until 11th level, where heal is closer to a full action, sometimes 2.


What on earth are you fighting regularly where Heal is only a full action worth of enemy damage? Seriously? 

This feels like you come from a table culture of very few, very deadly fights, which if that's how your table rolls then fine, but that is an extreme case. You're also coming at this as spells only matter, despite being pointed to features that enhance their effectiveness.

The only thing you've really said about it is I think addressing the double heal tactic from Celestial Warlocks and Dream Druids, at which point it really doesn't matter what you want to do with your healing. What matters is that you have the potential to deal out the heals you need to.

So what about any of the other actual healers? Does a Life Cleric actually fall short to you? Does AoV still feel lackluster when the average is instead 12.5 per bonus action?



You seem to like 10th level as a comparison point, one of my tables (I run combats I know they can handle, which is beyond the CR tables and usually their own expectations) is currently that level and the amount of healing the group has on tap is _disgusting,_ such as the Stars Druid who can heal (adjusting this to ignore boons) 3d8+10 = 23.5 with a _1st level_ Cure Wounds. Healing Word isn't far behind that, but she tends to prefer Cure Wounds for greater amounts of healing done. The party's HP max is around mid 80s-low 90s across the board, meaning that first level spell is in the region of 25% of their hit points. That's insane. She also has the option of casting AoV in the Chalice form to get bonus healing, then switch to the Dragon form for flight and near-unshakeable concentration, getting her action back for normal casting and attacks after the first turn.

Then there's the Sorcadin that's taken to Quickening Cure Wounds alongside Lay on Hands when the encounter calls for dumping some healing allowing a huge single target heal, or two decent sized heals. Or using Aid mid combat as a form of mass heal spell.

The Fighter can heal himself just fine with Second Wind and the Ranger/Rogue/Warlock has access to Cure Wounds and a flat 10 Healing Hands.

The party is far from optimised for healing, but the sheer amount of healing that they can bring to bear is staggering before any items or boons are taken into consideration.

The other party at 14th does just dandy too, the Barbarian Rogue loves getting topped off with a Healing Word or Mass Cure Wounds from the Bard(ish), with the hit points being near quadrupled through resistance and uncanny dodge.



Applying healing to actual parties looks very different than just averaging spells in isolation and if someone _builds a healer_, which is not the same as taking some healing spells, then they can do even more. Heck, if what they wanted to play anyway just happens to contain a boost to healing (like a fair few do) then they'll still be punching high. Random sample: A 5th level alchemist can bonus action cure wounds for 10.5 whilst still using their action to attack. Given that a d8 character with a +2 Con at that level has 36 HP, that's a good chunk of their max for very little investment.

Any conversation about healing that doesn't actually talk about healers is missing the mark.

----------


## Witty Username

> You need to remember the guaranteed use of healing vs those other options, but also that healing needs to co-exist with them. If you find no issue currently because of those other options, then increasing healing would just stack on top of that to make the game even easier?


This is misunderstanding the scope of the problem, and a bit how spells are used. This isn't, for me, healing needs support to function, it's that healing oscillates between useless (doesn't heal remotely enough) and unnecessary (didn't take meaningful damage). The difference between say the healing impact healing spirit new, and the damage mitigation impact of a spike growth spell isn't small. Now I could use both, but I can't because they are both concentration. And this isn't the only spell with this in play, just about every spell in the game represents higher mitigation than all healing spells (with the possible exception of mass heal), even if it is simply dealing damage to end the combat faster.

You mentioned death spirals with pop up healing, but I personally have found that is a problem inherent to healing in general. If you are spending actions on healing only for enemies to deal in excess to that damage by enough to down them anyway, nothing was accomplished. Pop-up healing has this problem the least, as it always adds 1 attack to this calculation.

-
I will admit my table uses primarily deadly encounters, about 4 per long rest, sometimes less sometimes more.
We did try 6 medium to hard encounters per long rest for a bit but we gave up after we stopped taking damage.

The flow of combat is not something that exclusively depends on encounter design, party composition matters as well, I will admit my playgroup trends more towards damage dealing and battle control options.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Applying healing to actual parties looks very different than just averaging spells in isolation and if someone _builds a healer_, which is not the same as taking some healing spells, then they can do even more. Heck, if what they wanted to play anyway just happens to contain a boost to healing (like a fair few do) then they'll still be punching high. Random sample: A 5th level alchemist can bonus action cure wounds for 10.5 whilst still using their action to attack. Given that a d8 character with a +2 Con at that level has 36 HP, that's a good chunk of their max for very little investment.
> 
> Any conversation about healing that doesn't actually talk about healers is missing the mark.


I agree with this. If _basic_ healing is powerful enough to do the job, then healers are either completely unnecessary or busted strong. Basic, unmodified healing spells _should_ be pretty weak. Just like basic, unmodified weapon attacks shouldn't be anything to write home about. TO actually do major damage, you need to have features that improve them. Whether by adding damage or by adding attacks. A basic healing spell, similarly, should be something for emergencies or for minor needs. Not a "keep the party up against major foes" power. At least without features that amp them up or provide other means.

----------


## Rerem115

Combat healing always walks a funny line.  The best way to heal your allies is to stop them from taking damage in the first place, and the best way to do that is - usually - knock the enemy out of the fight.  So, in combat healing has to be resource-competitive, either with recharges or actions, with killing or disabling enemies.

Pop-up healing is an extension of that; it's hard to be more efficient than giving an ally a whole new turn for a single action/bonus action.  If you want healing to be used before allies hit zero, there has to be similar efficiency.  Things like the Mercy Monk weaving heals and disables into their attack rotation, Beast Barbarians chomping away for a handful of HP each turn just for attacking, or Artificers continuously generating Temp HP and then smacking someone with their action.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Combat healing always walks a funny line.  The best way to heal your allies is to stop them from taking damage in the first place, and the best way to do that is - usually - knock the enemy out of the fight.  So, in combat healing has to be resource-competitive, either with recharges or actions, with killing or disabling enemies.
> 
> Pop-up healing is an extension of that; it's hard to be more efficient than giving an ally a whole new turn for a single action/bonus action.  If you want healing to be used before allies hit zero, there has to be similar efficiency.  Things like the Mercy Monk weaving heals and disables into their attack rotation, Beast Barbarians chomping away for a handful of HP each turn just for attacking, or Artificers continuously generating Temp HP and then smacking someone with their action.


Except that using pop-up healing only often leads to _lost_ actions. Because unless the healer goes after all monsters (and the KO'd person isn't dead) AND before the KO'd person, then the KO'd person will lose a turn. And a lost turn is _way_ more than a "lost" action. And possible death from enemy attacks (which takes basically nothing once you're downed) is even worse than that.

----------


## Mastikator

> So I think this solutions solves the wrong problem?
> 
> Apart from creating a death-spiral kind of mechanic, it only provides a secondary incentive to avoid being 'near zero' exchanging it for 'enough above zero'.
> 
> As mentioned in another thread, I separated out two kinds of HP, Stamina and Vitality. Stamina is recovered after every short rest, is healed by healing magic and potions. Vitality is only healed through bed-rest. Spells which do affect vitality increase the effectiveness of bed-rest.
> 
> Stamina is always lost first, Vitality second and Vitality can go negative. Having negative vitality makes you roll for injuries which are either semi-permanent or permanent.
> 
> Effect #1. Once you reach the 'zero stamina' point, players get nervous about losing vitality as it is hard to recover.
> ...


What other problems are there? IMO healing in D&D5e works perfectly fine aside from 0 hp healing word yoyoing.

My goal with my house rule of imposing 1 level of exhaustion when revived from 0 hp with magic is to
_slightly_ punish reaching 0 hpencourage healing before hitpoints gets too lowwhen 0 hp is reached, take a short rest and spend hit dice to heal fully

I really don't want to use permanent injury as a DM, I think it is contrary to the spirit of D&D 5e. For a grittier system I use permanent injury. D&D is supposed to be heroic, yes heroes sometimes get their ass kicked very hard, but they always come out of it in once piece.

Edit- also thank you for taking my reply seriously lol, appreciate  :Small Smile:

----------


## Witty Username

> You would bust out AoV in a tough fight where you're going to need to be bringing people up repeatedly, or you're actively topping up hit points to prevent them from getting into the dangerzone to begin with, which also assumes nothing but a naked spell.
> 
> You also seem to be saying that encounters that are more lethal aren't as likely to drag on? What?
> 
> 
> 
> What on earth are you fighting regularly where Heal is only a full action worth of enemy damage? Seriously?


If we are fighting a red dragon, that happens to crit on its bite or get a solid roll on its fire-breathing, yeah definitely. But that is CR 10 creatures, you're probably not going to encounter them until Tier 4. - my laptop is broken so I don't have blue.

Encounters aren't likely to drag past you being dead, no. Recall that encounters at level10+ can do upwards of 40-50 damage a round, without being deadly. That barbarian is still going to take a bunch of damage when stunned by a mind flayer (average damage 55 on that brain extract), by 11+, I would expect it possible to fight 2-3 of them. (Looks like that 3 is deadly by the book, possibly hard if you have 5-6 people). Average 7 (even a 11, if you happen to be a life cleric) hp a turn will often vanish in the noise of random rolls. And this is competing with other spells, bless to shore up saves, entangle to disrupt melee attacks and grant advantage. Or damage options, that mind flayer only has 71 hp, generally less than PC hp at that level from the sound of it, and they don't have those pesky defensive options PCs have. A casting of spirit guardians, could shave 1, possibly 2 rounds off this combat. That's like 220 points healing against these mind flayers. Nah I would rather heal 33 over 3 rounds.

It sounds like a bunch of characters have a multitude of defensive options and don't need healing in that case. If we prioritize ending fights and inparing our opponents we may not need healing all, in fact attempting to use it may be detrimental to the party in the long term. Take that dragon above, a restraining spell to ground it, or defensive spells to reduce its damage (even something like bless can put in alot of work in an encounter like this) or straight damage to cut its effective turns and we can leverage this to great effect. Leaving it to its own devices and concentrating on nothing but healing, is not a way that is going to last 6 combats a day.

----------


## KyleG

What determines each pool of hp?




> So I think this solutions solves the wrong problem?
> 
> Apart from creating a death-spiral kind of mechanic, it only provides a secondary incentive to avoid being 'near zero' exchanging it for 'enough above zero'.
> 
> As mentioned in another thread, I separated out two kinds of HP, Stamina and Vitality. Stamina is recovered after every short rest, is healed by healing magic and potions. Vitality is only healed through bed-rest. Spells which do affect vitality increase the effectiveness of bed-rest.
> 
> Stamina is always lost first, Vitality second and Vitality can go negative. Having negative vitality makes you roll for injuries which are either semi-permanent or permanent.
> 
> Effect #1. Once you reach the 'zero stamina' point, players get nervous about losing vitality as it is hard to recover.
> ...

----------


## Pex

> What other problems are there? IMO healing in D&D5e works perfectly fine aside from 0 hp healing word yoyoing.
> 
> My goal with my house rule of imposing 1 level of exhaustion when revived from 0 hp with magic is to
> _slightly_ punish reaching 0 hpencourage healing before hitpoints gets too lowwhen 0 hp is reached, take a short rest and spend hit dice to heal fully
> 
> I really don't want to use permanent injury as a DM, I think it is contrary to the spirit of D&D 5e. For a grittier system I use permanent injury. D&D is supposed to be heroic, yes heroes sometimes get their ass kicked very hard, but they always come out of it in once piece.
> 
> Edit- also thank you for taking my reply seriously lol, appreciate


One exhaustion level is not a "slight" punishment. It cannot be removed on a short rest so taking one doesn't matter. It's disadvantage to all ability checks for the rest of the game day until the next long rest. If the next long rest is 3 real world hours from now the player will have a miserable game night.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> This is misunderstanding the scope of the problem, and a bit how spells are used. This isn't, for me, healing needs support to function, it's that healing oscillates between useless (doesn't heal remotely enough) and unnecessary (didn't take meaningful damage). The difference between say the healing impact healing spirit new, and the damage mitigation impact of a spike growth spell isn't small. Now I could use both, but I can't because they are both concentration. And this isn't the only spell with this in play, just about every spell in the game represents higher mitigation than all healing spells (with the possible exception of mass heal), even if it is simply dealing damage to end the combat faster.


This approach treats any HP recovery that isn't lost to damage as meaningless, which it isn't. 1) it saves you Hit Dice on short rests 2) PCs/players aren't going to inherently know when the day becomes 'safe' and I know I certainly wouldn't want to tolerate a stab wound because I didn't think I'd get stabbed again.

You're also taking it as healing vs control/damage. That is dependent on your party and how things are going. If the monsters win initiative and start hurting the party, then you're going to have a greater incentive to heal, same with if your party has a lower average HP max.




> You mentioned death spirals with pop up healing, but I personally have found that is a problem inherent to healing in general. If you are spending actions on healing only for enemies to deal in excess to that damage by enough to down them anyway, nothing was accomplished. Pop-up healing has this problem the least, as it always adds 1 attack to this calculation.


What you're describing is a niche case. Getting so damaged that it not only wipes out the healing, but your remaining HP total is either bad luck (crit/high roll), or a poor tactical decision. If you're proactively healing someone it should be because it has a decent chance of actually keeping them up when paired with their current HP and any defenses. 

If you mean pop up healing adds 1 attack to the party side, that assumes favorable initiative, if you mean it takes an attack away from team monster, then you're assuming no AOEs, damage auras etc.

-



> I will admit my table uses primarily deadly encounters, about 4 per long rest, sometimes less sometimes more.
> We did try 6 medium to hard encounters per long rest for a bit but we gave up after we stopped taking damage.
> 
> The flow of combat is not something that exclusively depends on encounter design, party composition matters as well, I will admit my playgroup trends more towards damage dealing and battle control options.



Yeah, I'm having trouble grasping what your table is like where you lean towards deadly combats, but consistently keep damage on the frontline. Do you have any examples? (TBH that sounds like a failure as a DM, but I might just be misunderstanding)




> I agree with this. If _basic_ healing is powerful enough to do the job, then healers are either completely unnecessary or busted strong. Basic, unmodified healing spells _should_ be pretty weak. Just like basic, unmodified weapon attacks shouldn't be anything to write home about. TO actually do major damage, you need to have features that improve them. Whether by adding damage or by adding attacks. A basic healing spell, similarly, should be something for emergencies or for minor needs. Not a "keep the party up against major foes" power. At least without features that amp them up or provide other means.


Exactly, when the floor is all you need the specialists are either too much or irrelevant.




> Combat healing always walks a funny line.  The best way to heal your allies is to stop them from taking damage in the first place, and the best way to do that is - usually - knock the enemy out of the fight.  So, in combat healing has to be resource-competitive, either with recharges or actions, with killing or disabling enemies.


That's not healing, and whilst I get why people talk about this stuff it's like someone talking about blasting and the answer being 'control is better.' Like, that's not what's being discussed, and in this case getting damaged is inevitable, if you're never in a position where you need healing then... what's the point of damage being there in the first place?




> Pop-up healing is an extension of that; *it's hard to be more efficient than giving an ally a whole new turn for a single action/bonus action.*  If you want healing to be used before allies hit zero, there has to be similar efficiency.  Things like the Mercy Monk weaving heals and disables into their attack rotation, Beast Barbarians chomping away for a handful of HP each turn just for attacking, or Artificers continuously generating Temp HP and then smacking someone with their action.


That assumes that they'll get to take their turn with minimum HP, and that they don't lose anything from going down. In reality there are plenty of cases where a PC going down costs them concentration or a use of a special ability, perhaps one they can't use again.




> If we are fighting a red dragon, that happens to crit on its bite or get a solid roll on its fire-breathing, yeah definitely. But that is CR 10 creatures, you're probably not going to encounter them until Tier 4. - my laptop is broken so I don't have blue.


I'm going to assume you meant to blue the until Tier 4 part?

So I guess you're talking about a young red, in which case the average crit of a bite is 35. The breath is an average of 56, so high end would be 70 and above.

So your example for what you would possible be fighting *regularly* is a Young Red where CR is near enough equal to level. Not only that but then you go as far as to throw out a crit on the most damaging attack or a high roll on a Dex save for one of the most easily resisted damage types in the entire game?

The fact that you're giving a high-powered creature critting or rolling high on a high damage AoE kind of illustrates my point, that kind of damage output isn't really common, even in deadly games for that level range.




> Encounters aren't likely to drag past you being dead, no. Recall that encounters at level10+ can do upwards of 40-50 damage a round, without being deadly. That barbarian is still going to take a bunch of damage when stunned by a mind flayer (average damage 55 on that brain extract), by 11+, I would expect it possible to fight 2-3 of them. (Looks like that 3 is deadly by the book, possibly hard if you have 5-6 people). Average 7 (even a 11, if you happen to be a life cleric) hp a turn will often vanish in the noise of random rolls. And this is competing with other spells, bless to shore up saves, entangle to disrupt melee attacks and grant advantage. Or damage options, that mind flayer only has 71 hp, generally less than PC hp at that level from the sound of it, and they don't have those pesky defensive options PCs have. A casting of spirit guardians, could shave 1, possibly 2 rounds off this combat. That's like 220 points healing against these mind flayers. Nah I would rather heal 33 over 3 rounds.


I don't even know what you're trying to achieve with these encounter examples. 3 Mind Flayers? That's deadly by rating for a party of 4 11th level PCs, in reality? Mind Blast is a huge AOE that targets a likely weak save for the Stunned condition. Combine that with three Dominate Monsters and you have a ridiculous encounter that is extremely likely to lead to a TPK unless the party is very lucky. 

Even in your example you're talking about Extract Brain, where someone has already been stunned. But your answer is to toss more spells at it, a creature that has Magic Resistance?

Acting like Spirit Guardians would blender 3 Mindflayers and not end up in the Cleric casting it dying horribly is... optimistic at best. And considering that a PC that gets reduced to 0 gets their brain eaten (so... not revivifiable), arguably that's a bigger case to keep them topped up just in case, whilst maintaining a massive distance.




> It sounds like a bunch of characters have a multitude of defensive options and don't need healing in that case. If we prioritize ending fights and inparing our opponents we may not need healing all, in fact attempting to use it may be detrimental to the party in the long term. Take that dragon above, a restraining spell to ground it, or defensive spells to reduce its damage (even something like bless can put in alot of work in an encounter like this) or straight damage to cut its effective turns and we can leverage this to great effect. Leaving it to its own devices and concentrating on nothing but healing, is not a way that is going to last 6 combats a day.


At what point have I said that the entire party should be healing nonstop? Unless the party is hit with a fire breath before they can even do anything there's no reason to even assume that would be the case from the off. In reality most parties are going to have multiple characters incapable of healing altogether, and you don't need to heal unless the situation calls for it...

You seem to be taking this as 'it's healing or nothing' which is absurd, you're not healing every turn, most characters won't be healing at all, and there are plenty of ways to heal whilst doing something else. I mean you listed a whole bunch of options that are not only able to work alongside healing, but might not even be an option for the character in question. I mean, what is a Cleric doing to restrain a dragon?

And finally: You don't need to heal in every combat of a 6 combat day. If you do, something is seriously wrong.

Do not mistake the argument 'healing is more than adequate, and can even be great in 5E' for 'your character should do nothing but heal bot.' Those are not the same, nor would the latter really work in a game like 5E. 

I don't find the situations you're proposing common at all, at least not for a party that is actually going to survive, and you've not shown that healing is inadequate at all. You just keep engineering severe circumstances and pointing at spells alone, often underleveled ones, as if that proves your point. Spells are not what makes a healer, and if all you do is pick up a few spells and use them at bad times you're a terrible healer.




> One exhaustion level is not a "slight" punishment. It cannot be removed on a short rest so taking one doesn't matter. It's disadvantage to all ability checks for the rest of the game day until the next long rest. If the next long rest is 3 real world hours from now the player will have a miserable game night.


You're really overselling this. Whilst some players might feel that way, it certainly isn't everyone. The reasons for this are mixed, such as succeeding despite disadvantage feels really good, or roleplaying your hindrance, but it's ultimately up to the type of player affected.

----------


## Pex

> You're really overselling this. Whilst some players might feel that way, it certainly isn't everyone. The reasons for this are mixed, such as succeeding despite disadvantage feels really good, or roleplaying your hindrance, but it's ultimately up to the type of player affected.


I know it's true from experience, as the player affected and a party member of another player who was affected. It's the same reason Save or Suck spells and monster effects of the past have been changed to get another save at the end of your turn. Hindering players doing stuff for a significant amount of game time is not conducive to the fun of play. Players accept the chance of failure. An inconvenience for a short amount of time is game play. Having the deck stacked against you for a significant amount of time is frustration. Succeeding anyway with Disadvantage is cool, but the continuing having to roll with Disadvantage zaps the fun. Success actually becomes less joyful when you've been failing all day and another failure will happen a minute later, generically speaking.

In the proposed house rule what happens when the exhausted character drops again next combat? His exhaustion worsens, making him more miserable. All this does is force, not encourage, someone to be the healer. The DM might be happy, but now he's forcing the players to play the game his way instead of the way they want to. He's forcing their hand to take certain actions because otherwise in his eyes they're playing the game wrong for not healing enough. Let the players worry how they want to handle healing.

----------


## Goobahfish

> Small hiccup, Cure Wounds and related become misleadingly-named (like Chill Touch) as they no longer in fact address injuries but rather fatigue.


Ha ha, this has always been an issue in D&D. What is HP? Were you actually injured? etc etc.




> What other problems are there? IMO healing in D&D5e works perfectly fine aside from 0 hp healing word yoyoing.
> 
> My goal with my house rule of imposing 1 level of exhaustion when revived from 0 hp with magic is to
> _slightly_ punish reaching 0 hpencourage healing before hitpoints gets too lowwhen 0 hp is reached, take a short rest and spend hit dice to heal fully
> 
> 
> Edit- also thank you for taking my reply seriously lol, appreciate


So, I think broadly, your rule is a good one in the 5e context (i.e., single simple house rule, pretty easy to remember etc). 
*The flaws in it (i.e. design trade-offs are):*
#1: You have an extra tally to keep track of: Exhaustion level. This is already baked in to 5.1 so it probably shouldn't be too hard to deal with. However, it does mean that you need to be careful of characters who get 'normal exhaustion' and 'healing exhaustion' because if those two don't work identically, it will be huge hassle.
#2: More math. Any time you need to do a calculation at the table is a bad thing. If a player hasn't pre-calculated their to-hit (i.e., +6 rather than +[4 + 2]) I usually flog them. All numbers should be either 'on a dice' or 'a single easy to reference constant'. The new exhaustion mechanic veers dangerously into 'fiddly numbers' territory. "Oh, I forgot exhaustion... actually that was a fail" kind of stuff.
#3: The game is swingy. So, occasionally, despite their best efforts players will get knocked to zero just out of sheer bad luck. Monster double crits etc. Now you get exhaustion. Now your players are less... capable? This is a very dangerous kind of punishment as its behaviour is highly non-linear. The first exhaustion might be fine, but the second one might actually disrupt the game balance a lot. First exhaustion leads to failing a reflex save for double damage leading to more exhaustion. This leads to death-spiraling.
*The benefits:*
#1: It punishes yo-yoing. I think this is broadly a good thing, but it doesn't actually fix yo-yoing, just discourages it (which is why I think the rule is 'broadly' good).

Fixing yo-yoing is kind of difficult because it would probably require negative HP (i.e., healing word is not enough, a buffer is required).




> I really don't want to use permanent injury as a DM, I think it is contrary to the spirit of D&D 5e. For a grittier system I use permanent injury. D&D is supposed to be heroic, yes heroes sometimes get their ass kicked very hard, but they always come out of it in once piece.


So, the only reason I have serious injuries (and most of them are non-permanent), is because of Luke Skywalker. A hero has to be able to have their hand cut off. It has to be a thing.

Also, I'm more an advocate of three kinds of injury.
#1 Minor: Lasts until next long rest.
#2 Moderate: Lasts for a week.
#3 Major: You need some divine intervention to help with this.




> What determines each pool of hp?


That is an interesting question. This is from a 'heavily modified to the point of not actually D&D game I play'. However, as a first pass, in 5e I would do it like this:
Everyone gets D4 + Con Vitality/level.
D6 classes get 1 Stamina/level
D8 classes get 2
D10 classes get 3
D12 classes get 4.

The idea here is that combat classes really can 'shrug off' injuries pretty effectively whereas wizards have a very small bank of HP before they start getting seriously hurt.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

My biggest issue with penalties for being dropped to 0 is that it punishes people disproportionately. Those who have lots of tools to avoid damage (ie casters, ranged) are fine, but those who are designed to take that damage (ie heavy melee) or who have fewer tools to avoid it (ie melee skirmishers) take it on the chin. Which further incentivizes being one of the ranged guys.

As a comparison, FFXIV used to heavily use "vulnerability stacks" for standing in avoidable mechanics. Each stack meant you took more damage. But that just makes the _healers_ work harder (and gave rise, in part, to the infamous "healers adjust" saying). Not the ones who ate the avoidable pain, who often did so intentionally to "greed" more damage. Note that almost _all_ raid damage is avoidable unless you're a tank--there are raidwides, but those don't give vuln. Now, instead, they mostly use damage down effects. Get hit and you do less damage. Which directly hits at the most important part of a DPS's soul--the ego. And is thus way more effective at encouraging actually doing the mechanics.

Now the situation isn't quite comparable, as much less damage in D&D is avoidable. But the principle of _punishing the people who did the wrong thing_, not the ones who were doing what they were supposed to (in this case _being in melee_) applies.

Personally, I'm grateful that my players take being downed seriously both in-and-out of character. They don't game the pop-up healing or the death saves, they heal in combat where appropriate, and generally play like they're actual people instead of just chess pieces.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> But at 10th level, you've only got that one 50 pt lay on hands all day. 2nd level slots are, if not nothing, comparatively cheap.


Sorry to not get back to this sooner.  Got busy.

Yes, at 10th level you only get 50 points all day.  However that 50 points is more hp than the Cleric can heal with one action, so my players tend to save the Paly healing and keep it intact for in combat healing if needed.  Other resources, like those cheap 2nd level slots you speak of, tend to get used out of combat.  Is this just my group that finds the Paly's ability superior to the Cleric's in this regard?

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Sorry to not get back to this sooner.  Got busy.
> 
> Yes, at 10th level you only get 50 points all day.  However that 50 points is more hp than the Cleric can heal with one action, so my players tend to save the Paly healing and keep it intact for in combat healing if needed.  Other resources, like those cheap 2nd level slots you speak of, tend to get used out of combat.  Is this just my group that finds the Paly's ability superior to the Cleric's in this regard?


Paladins do have a great burst heal. But very limited. Sure, if all you need is one burst heal a day and the paladin is up and around and in range, that's great. But if you need more, or the paladin is the one that's down...

----------


## Segev

> Except that using pop-up healing only often leads to _lost_ actions. Because unless the healer goes after all monsters (and the KO'd person isn't dead) AND before the KO'd person, then the KO'd person will lose a turn. And a lost turn is _way_ more than a "lost" action. And possible death from enemy attacks (which takes basically nothing once you're downed) is even worse than that.


You're right, but pop-up healing is still more efficient than healing before they go down, in many cases. Let's take the very useful _healing word_: it heals at most 9 hp when cast from a 1st level spell slot.

If those nine hp do not make a difference in the number of hits it takes before the target goes down  which, as levels increase, becomes increasingly improbable  it is more or less a wasted spell slot and action to apply that healing. On the other hand, if the target is downed, even a roll of a 1 with a casting stat of 10 results in a whole extra attack being required to remove the target from the fight again.

That is why pop-up healing is considered superior to the alternative in most cases: healing will often be less than an attack's damage, and will often take more actions to use than it will cost the enemy in increased actions-to-down.

----------


## Kane0

> My biggest issue with penalties for being dropped to 0 is that it punishes people disproportionately. Those who have lots of tools to avoid damage (ie casters, ranged) are fine, but those who are designed to take that damage (ie heavy melee) or who have fewer tools to avoid it (ie melee skirmishers) take it on the chin. Which further incentivizes being one of the ranged guys.


Incoming anecdote.

Last game I played, over the course of 13 levels it was the casters (one sorc, one lock) that got dropped and killed most often. The barbarian came in second, then a chunk of distance between us and the paladin and rogue.

Warlock died twice, sorcerer once, barbarian once, pally and rogue no deaths. Pally did get petrified once though, so that would count as a death.

Being at range in an of itself isnt much protection in a game with encounters that feature regular mobile, ranged and/or aoe threats.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I know it's true from experience, as the player affected and a party member of another player who was affected. It's the same reason Save or Suck spells and monster effects of the past have been changed to get another save at the end of your turn. Hindering players doing stuff for a significant amount of game time is not conducive to the fun of play. Players accept the chance of failure. An inconvenience for a short amount of time is game play. Having the deck stacked against you for a significant amount of time is frustration. Succeeding anyway with Disadvantage is cool, but the continuing having to roll with Disadvantage zaps the fun. Success actually becomes less joyful when you've been failing all day and another failure will happen a minute later, generically speaking.


All you're showing is that yourself and the other party member are the type of players that are bothered by it? I mean anecdotes certainly have their place, but this isn't proving anything? 

Counter anecdotes: One of my games recently went to hell where traveling landed two PCs with exhaustion, one didn't mind and RP'd into it, the other kind of minded but it was an annoyance at most. The other active game has a PC being repeatedly targeted by Dream (I think that's it) and stacked exhaustion far more than just once, in addition to running out of long rest resources and being unable to replenish them. Besides missing doing some stuff, he expressed that it was primarily just scary tension for his character.

Some players will be bothered, some won't. The player base isn't a monolith, and all players hating having a level of exhaustion as much as you portray is certainly not everyone, anecdotally it isn't even my norm.



> In the proposed house rule what happens when the exhausted character drops again next combat? His exhaustion worsens, making him more miserable. All this does is force, not encourage, someone to be the healer. The DM might be happy, but now he's forcing the players to play the game his way instead of the way they want to. He's forcing their hand to take certain actions because otherwise in his eyes they're playing the game wrong for not healing enough. Let the players worry how they want to handle healing.


Not my rule, my version lets the first level go away on a short rest unless you stack higher. And I'm not buying the forcing them how to play thing, avoiding 'dying' is something everyone should want to do anyway, and personally when I run rules like this the players have bought into it for whatever personal reason.




> You're right, but pop-up healing is still more efficient than healing before they go down, in many cases. Let's take the very useful _healing word_: it heals at most 9 hp when cast from a 1st level spell slot.


It doesn't bode well for your argument that you've chosen the weakest healing spell and are applying it poorly (1st level, unassisted cast for proactive healing beyond 8+). 

However, since you went there, Healing Word heals at most 17 HP to a single character with a 1st level slot, you just have to actually be healer to get it that high (Circle of Wild Fire). Or a smaller, but more reliable, max of 12 and 14 for Life Clerics (with some self heal) and Alchemists respectively, and some AOE heals for the Shepherd Druid.




> If those nine hp do not make a difference in the number of hits it takes before the target goes down  which, as levels increase, becomes increasingly improbable  it is more or less a wasted spell slot and action to apply that healing. On the other hand, if the target is downed, even a roll of a 1 with a casting stat of 10 results in a whole extra attack being required to remove the target from the fight again.


This ignores the risks of going down, and paints that you should be casting Healing Word unassisted as a top up as levels go up. That's a horrible idea, unless you're really desperate. 




> That is why pop-up healing is considered superior to the alternative in most cases: healing will often be less than an attack's damage, and will often take more actions to use than it will cost the enemy in increased actions-to-down.


I'm going to throw this out there: _The main reason a wider audience considers pop up healing better is because some players prefer to prioritise doing more flashy stuff, like damage and control._ Arguments to support pop up healing are usually incomplete and often hinge on 'what if' or 'what's likely' whilst ignoring the risks of going down in actual play and the RP point of view of allowing injured allies to potentially die.

----------


## Mastikator

> So, I think broadly, your rule is a good one in the 5e context (i.e., single simple house rule, pretty easy to remember etc). 
> *The flaws in it (i.e. design trade-offs are):*
> #1: You have an extra tally to keep track of: Exhaustion level. This is already baked in to 5.1 so it probably shouldn't be too hard to deal with. However, it does mean that you need to be careful of characters who get 'normal exhaustion' and 'healing exhaustion' because if those two don't work identically, it will be huge hassle.
> #2: More math. Any time you need to do a calculation at the table is a bad thing. If a player hasn't pre-calculated their to-hit (i.e., +6 rather than +[4 + 2]) I usually flog them. All numbers should be either 'on a dice' or 'a single easy to reference constant'. The new exhaustion mechanic veers dangerously into 'fiddly numbers' territory. "Oh, I forgot exhaustion... actually that was a fail" kind of stuff.
> #3: The game is swingy. So, occasionally, despite their best efforts players will get knocked to zero just out of sheer bad luck. Monster double crits etc. Now you get exhaustion. Now your players are less... capable? This is a very dangerous kind of punishment as its behaviour is highly non-linear. The first exhaustion might be fine, but the second one might actually disrupt the game balance a lot. First exhaustion leads to failing a reflex save for double damage leading to more exhaustion. This leads to death-spiraling.
> *The benefits:*
> #1: It punishes yo-yoing. I think this is broadly a good thing, but it doesn't actually fix yo-yoing, just discourages it (which is why I think the rule is 'broadly' good).
> 
> Fixing yo-yoing is kind of difficult because it would probably require negative HP (i.e., healing word is not enough, a buffer is required).


I give players tokens. White tokens represent inspiration, black tokens represent 0 hp exhaustion. Blue tokens represent normal exhaustion.. I mean they're actually poker chips I won at a christmas game a few years ago but who cares, they work really well as game tokens. I guess other people would have to buy beads or something, but finding tokens isn't hard.

The death spiral is definitely the intention here, I want players who yoyo on 0 hp to feel like they NEED to rest, to NEED to flee, to NEED to not engage in violence. And to need to use resources to fully heal up and rest. I mitigate it by allowing players to rest, if they choose to. I design dungeons and encounters with short rests in mind.

----------


## Segev

> It doesn't bode well for your argument that you've chosen the weakest healing spell and are applying it poorly (1st level, unassisted cast for proactive healing beyond 8+). 
> 
> However, since you went there, Healing Word heals at most 17 HP to a single character with a 1st level slot, you just have to actually be healer to get it that high (Circle of Wild Fire). Or a smaller, but more reliable, max of 12 and 14 for Life Clerics (with some self heal) and Alchemists respectively, and some AOE heals for the Shepherd Druid.
> 
> 
> 
> This ignores the risks of going down, and paints that you should be casting Healing Word unassisted as a top up as levels go up. That's a horrible idea, unless you're really desperate. 
> 
> 
> ...


I chose the easiest pop-up healing spell.

I also chose the most efficient spell slot to spend on anything.

I assume by "unassisted," you mean "no specialized healing class features." Yes, I did assume that. That is by far the most common healing you will see, simply because not every party has a player who wants to be a dedicated healer. _Healing word_ is, in fact, what my knowledge cleric 1/Illusionist wizear 6 uses in in combat if needed. Slithering up into melee range to use _cure wounds_ is a foolish risk for an average of two more hp per spell slot level, and casting it at higher level will still not get my allies as much efficacy as casting a stronger buff or debuff or even damage AoE from that same higher-level spell slot.

I will further assume that "top-up" heaping is a typo for "pop-up healing;" if you meant something else, I am not sure what "top-up" healing is.

For healing to matter in combat, it must increase the number of actions the target can take by at least one. Otherwise, it is better to use your own action for something that reduces enemy efficacy. Even if your target ally has better actions for enemy deprecation than you do, if your healing is not buying them at least one more action, you're waking your action.

Pop-up healing always buys them, if not another action, at least another hit they can absorb and force the enemy to try to make. The same is not true of healing when they have at least one hp left!

----------


## Dork_Forge

I rearranged your post slightly to clarify at the beginning.




> I will further assume that "top-up" heaping is a typo for "pop-up healing;" if you meant something else, I am not sure what "top-up" healing is.


It wasn't a typo, I was talking about proactively healing when a target isn't at 0, pop up vs top up, which is what you seemed to be contrasting with the 'if 9 hp doesn't make a difference' bit.




> I chose the easiest pop-up healing spell.
> 
> I also chose the most efficient spell slot to spend on anything.


You also chose the weakest spell at its lowest casting and then spoke about it as a bad choice to proactively heal someone with. Which... it is after the first few levels, I'm not sure anyone has advocated for slapping a bandaid on a stab wound.




> I assume by "unassisted," you mean "no specialized healing class features." Yes, I did assume that. That is by far the most common healing you will see, simply because not every party has a player who wants to be a dedicated healer. _Healing word_ is, in fact, what my knowledge cleric 1/Illusionist wizear 6 uses in in combat if needed. Slithering up into melee range to use _cure wounds_ is a foolish risk for an average of two more hp per spell slot level, and casting it at higher level will still not get my allies as much efficacy as casting a stronger buff or debuff or even damage AoE from that same higher-level spell slot.


You understood correctly.

And I don't care if unassisted healing is the most commonly seen, it doesn't change the fact that you made the worst choice for a comparison between the two. And, again, *talking about the state of healing by ignoring actual healers is pointless.*

Just because your Cleric took Healing Word doesn't make them a healer, it just means they can heal. And, shockingly, a character who's healing is coming from a single level dip is a terrible example. You're healing like a 1st level character, of course that's good for little-else than pop up.

An aside: being within 5ft of an ally =/= being within melee range of a creature, and if you're primarily a Wizard then presumably you have a familiar that can deliver it.




> For healing to matter in combat, it must increase the number of actions the target can take by at least one. Otherwise, it is better to use your own action for something that reduces enemy efficacy. Even if your target ally has better actions for enemy deprecation than you do, if your healing is not buying them at least one more action, you're waking your action.


No, it really doesn't. Even if they take just a single additional attack it was worth it, they don't need to eat an entire action. And if your aim is to keep your ally up, you shouldn't be relying on casting a 1st level Healing Word at 7th character level. 

I'm also going to throw out there that a safety buffer is also valuable. Even if the healed hitpoints are never touched, there is a value to knowing you have a cushion, be it against unexpected surprises or bad luck (Crits, high damage rolls, bad saves, etc.).




> Pop-up healing always buys them, if not another action, at least another hit they can absorb and force the enemy to try to make. The same is not true of healing when they have at least one hp left!


Except for when they're caught in an AOE or auto damage of some kind, where they'll likely have so little hit points that they'll go straight back down. 

And, again, this is assuming that the PC going down has no limited resources triggered they may want to actually preserve.


TL:DR - 'My 7th level character using a 1st level Healing Word is only good for pop up healing' isn't a criticism of healing. It's just commentary on your character build, which is basically just a Wizard at heart.

I really don't get people's aversion to talking about actual healing features when talking about healing. How can you expect to be good at something you've made next to no investment in? And, why should uninvested healing be good? To steal PP's comparison, it's like expecting a melee attack to be a good idea when there's literally nothing enhancing it.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Another thing about letting people fall to 0 is that it ends a _crap ton_ of ongoing things. Concentrating? Yeah, it's gone. Rage? Yup, gone. Auras? Yeah, they're off. Etc. SO even after you pop them back up, they're much less effective than they were. And if they pop up, start another such effect, then go down again...tons of wasted resources.

----------


## Pex

> All you're showing is that yourself and the other party member are the type of players that are bothered by it? I mean anecdotes certainly have their place, but this isn't proving anything? 
> 
> Counter anecdotes: One of my games recently went to hell where traveling landed two PCs with exhaustion, one didn't mind and RP'd into it, the other kind of minded but it was an annoyance at most. The other active game has a PC being repeatedly targeted by Dream (I think that's it) and stacked exhaustion far more than just once, in addition to running out of long rest resources and being unable to replenish them. Besides missing doing some stuff, he expressed that it was primarily just scary tension for his character.
> 
> Some players will be bothered, some won't. The player base isn't a monolith, and all players hating having a level of exhaustion as much as you portray is certainly not everyone, anecdotally it isn't even my norm.
> 
> 
> Not my rule, my version lets the first level go away on a short rest unless you stack higher. And I'm not buying the forcing them how to play thing, avoiding 'dying' is something everyone should want to do anyway, and personally when I run rules like this the players have bought into it for whatever personal reason.


It's not just one other player besides me. It's every time it happens. It's the difference about length of time. Exhaustion for real world twenty minutes of game time is an inconvenience, but you can play it through. Having it for real world hours of play gets tired (pun intended) real fast. When the Dragon Sorcerer who likes to cast his Fire Bolt and Fireball has to face fire resistant/immune creatures for a combat it's annoying but he plays through. When every combat of the adventure has fire resistant/immune creatures, there's a problem. It's the same principle.

You are forcing people to play your way when you deride pop-up healing as "gamey" so it needs to be avoided because you don't like it.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> It's not just one other player besides me. It's every time it happens. It's the difference about length of time. Exhaustion for real world twenty minutes of game time is an inconvenience, but you can play it through. Having it for real world hours of play gets tired (pun intended) real fast. When the Dragon Sorcerer who likes to cast his Fire Bolt and Fireball has to face fire resistant/immune creatures for a combat it's annoying but he plays through. When every combat of the adventure has fire resistant/immune creatures, there's a problem. It's the same principle.


Pex, I don't care how many people you can point to, have you considered that you play with like-minded people to some degree? That not everyone minds that much? I've had players be some degree of exhausted for multiple 4+ hour session in a row, that is the context I'm coming from.

Personally it would entirely depend what mood I'm in, sometimes it'd bother me, others not, but it wouldn't ruin my character or my time.

And a single level of exhaustion, which is what it's likely to be, isn't destroying your every interaction with the game. Heck, two isn't doing that either.





> You are forcing people to play your way when you deride pop-up healing as "gamey" so it needs to be avoided because you don't like it.


I can't force anyone to do anything, and when I DM such rules are with player buy-in. You can disagree with me, but don't claim I'm forcing anyone to do anything.

And I've never had to push any of these rules upon my ongoing games (nor would I), one group naturally doesn't like each other going down, the other did some pop up healing at first, then got past that when they had to keep doing it.

----------


## Pex

At this point it's just "Nuh-uh" "Uh-huh" back and forth.

----------


## Segev

> I rearranged your post slightly to clarify at the beginning.
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't a typo, I was talking about proactively healing when a target isn't at 0, pop up vs top up, which is what you seemed to be contrasting with the 'if 9 hp doesn't make a difference' bit.
> 
> 
> 
> You also chose the weakest spell at its lowest casting and then spoke about it as a bad choice to proactively heal someone with. Which... it is after the first few levels, I'm not sure anyone has advocated for slapping a bandaid on a stab wound.
> ...


We agree that the need for top-up healing is that it make the difference in how many hits that the healed teat can take before being removed from the fight. My understanding of this threads premise is that healing sucks in this edition because it can't do that in top-up healing. If you are arguing that it can, then you are disagreeing wh the premise of this thread, which is fine. But I believe you should make that explicit. Are you saying healing is fine as-is? Or do you agree with the premise of the thread that it "sucks?"

I tend to agree that it is best used for pop-up because it is often inefficient compared to other options. You seem to disagree. What options for healing do you recommend as efficient enough to use for top-up healing rather than other actions to buff allies or dismantle enemies?

----------


## Dork_Forge

> We agree that the need for top-up healing is that it make the difference in how many hits that the healed teat can take before being removed from the fight.


Yup, healing should make a difference, be it utilized or psychological.




> My understanding of this threads premise is that healing sucks in this edition because it can't do that in top-up healing. If you are arguing that it can, then you are disagreeing wh the premise of this thread, which is fine. But I believe you should make that explicit. Are you saying healing is fine as-is? Or do you agree with the premise of the thread that it "sucks?"


I didn't realise I hadn't been explicit, so I guess I'll bullet-point my stance:

- The amount of healing (outside of rests) in 5E is more than adequate, with the potential to be great. I disagree with the thread premise.

- Rules around dropping to 0 and rest-based healing leads to an easier default game, this devalues healing in some people's eyes. I have my own rules to make things more tense, but rarely need to use them.

- A trend has emerged in the thread of criticising 'healing' as just the average out put of healing spells. That is the base of healing, no where near it's peak and such an approach does healing a disservice.

- My only criticism of healing is I'd like more mundane options, Healer is perfect, I'd just rather we have some more options scattered throughout.




> I tend to agree that it is best used for pop-up because it is often inefficient compared to other options. You seem to disagree. What options for healing do you recommend as efficient enough to use for top-up healing rather than other actions to buff allies or dismantle enemies?


This is hard to answer as it's entirely contextual, Healing Word could suffice for the first few levels. If you're healing a Barbarian in Rage, then less healing is obviously needed. If you're healing a Fighter that goes before the monster with Second Wind available, a Warlock with Gift of the Everliving etc. So I'll just address some general options:

- Cure Wounds does a respectable job and upcasting it can be worth it. This is best when your build can work with it, like Quickening it, Distant casting etc.

- Aura of Vitality does a good job of providing a flow of healing

- Healer does a respectable job and scales naturally, most practical in combat on a Thief

But ultimately, really? Be a real darn healer. The default for healing spells isn't super high for multiple reasons, one of them being it just works, another being that they represent the _floor_ of healing.

For some reason people take the notion of 'I have access to Healing Word etc.' as 'I'm a healer,' you're not any more than a level 1 Wizard is a Fighter because they can take the Attack action. 

Things like Cure Wounds (and even Healing Word) are far more appealing when you strengthen their amount of healing and their efficiency. Adding a flat number, modifier, extra die etc. goes a long way, and a lot of options that provide bonus healing aren't as pigeon-holed as the Life Cleric.

A Wildfire Druid basically upcasts Cure Wounds for free whilst getting a bonus action ranged attack.

An Alchemist can cast Healing word for double modifier whilst throwing buffed cantrips.

A Divine Soul can Twin their healing, quicken it etc. to maximise effectiveness and economy.

A Paladin has the option of a deep heal once-twice per day outside of their spells.

Anyone with a companion/minion can use any old healing option with bonus action attacks.

It's never been a case of 'well I do basic healing spell and nothing else' as the peak of healing and the decision making process is dependent on a lot of things, but quite simply:

If all you have is Healing Word, with no boost, then no, the overwhelming majority of the time you should be doing other things unless the person you're healing has their own defenses/healing to combo it with. If you don't have a decent top up option, then of course it looks bad (not you specifically, generically). 

I guess the general vibe from people opposing healing here is that healing doesn't do enough, but... no one I can remember has said anything (exc. LoH) just dumping a spell, usually well beyond the level the spell initially came online. Like everything in the game, healing is a spectrum, most people would assume to be high up on the spectrums of damage or control, so I don't know why they assume to be high up on the spectrum of healing without investment (and then claim the spectrum's ceiling is too low).

----------


## Schwann145

> For some reason people take the notion of 'I have access to Healing Word etc.' as 'I'm a healer,' you're not any more than a level 1 Wizard is a Fighter because they can take the Attack action.


This isn't a good comparison. The Attack action is a core functionality of the game and is available to everyone without investing any character resources. Every single healing option (outside of HD healing) requires sacrificing character resources to gain access to. The very fact that you have to choose Healing Word over other, potentially more efficient/effective options, makes it significantly different than a standard Attack action. The healing option in question would have to be granted for free to anyone/everyone to make this a valid comparison. Such a heal should, agreed, be about as valuable as a standard unmodified attack, but such a heal doesn't exist in 5e.

Choosing to use some of your limited character resources to pick up a healing option does, in fact, make you "a healer." The scope of _how much_ of a healer you are may be up for debate, but that you are one shouldn't be.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> This isn't a good comparison. The Attack action is a core functionality of the game and is available to everyone without investing any character resources. Every single healing option (outside of HD healing) requires sacrificing character resources to gain access to. The very fact that you have to choose Healing Word over other, potentially more efficient/effective options, makes it significantly different than a standard Attack action. The healing option in question would have to be granted for free to anyone/everyone to make this a valid comparison. Such a heal should, agreed, be about as valuable as a standard unmodified attack, but such a heal doesn't exist in 5e.


I feel like you took that comparison to the letter rather than the spirit of what I was saying.

Note: You're also not correct, there are quite a few healing options that are their own resource. The only argument you can make there is the 'opportunity cost' of playing something else which... doesn't really seem relevant like the spell comparison.

If you want a closer comparison then sure, it's like taking literally damage spells and complaining that you're not good at damage. I don't think it's controversial to say that such a thing would result in people pointing to the numerous ways to increase the potency/efficacy of those spells.

It's one thing to say healing sucks because you don't like the ceiling, it's something else entirely to completely ignore _actual healers._ 

Like, I don't think I've seen anyone:

1) Say that optimised healing is bad, just pointing at spells

2) Give a good reason why the floor of healing should be significantly higher/why anyone that can grab a spell should automatically be good at healing.

----------


## Segev

For what it is worth, after his longer explanation of his position,  I am more in agreement with Dork Forge on this than in disagreement. While yes, choosing anything to get healing that works on others consumes build resources, he is right, as far as I can tell, that building to actually be good at healing does make healing "not suck" in 5e. Or, at least, he has made his case on that front better than anybody has made a counterargument. 

Personally,  I think healing doesn't suck in 5e also because healing is generously available in the form of full healing on long rests and hit dice rolls on short rests. Pop-up healing is more effective an top-up healing for most parties because of the things I have already said and the fact that _it is all you need_ in most parties. Building to be "the healer" rather than "a healer when it is really needed" is an option, but is unnecessary in most cases.

"healing sucks" in appearance mainly because it isn't crucial, and building for it feels superfluous. It isn't,  but it feels that way if you expect it to be critical. If you build an effective top-up healer, you will have to accept that damage does scale faster than your healing, but that your top-up healing is actually keeping your party going a lot longer than otherwise, even if that isn't obvious.

----------


## Pex

> Yup, healing should make a difference, be it utilized or psychological.
> 
> I didn't realise I hadn't been explicit, so I guess I'll bullet-point my stance:
> 
> - The amount of healing (outside of rests) in 5E is more than adequate, with the potential to be great. I disagree with the thread premise.


I agree. I know upon first reading of 5E all those years ago I was perturbed by the amount of healing offered from spells, but with years of experience of play I have found it does the job. It's not supposed to heal PCs to full. It's supposed to keep them conscious to defeat the enemy. Out of combat healing is what heals PCs to full. I wouldn't mind if the healing spells were given a boost, but I appreciate that's done with class features. That more than one class can do healing means it gets spread around. When the cleric can't heal because he needs to do something else, the druid or bard can. Maybe because the druid or bard did it first (willingly and happily) the cleric doesn't have to and just gets the normal fun of doing something else.




> - Rules around dropping to 0 and rest-based healing leads to an easier default game, this devalues healing in some people's eyes. I have my own rules to make things more tense, but rarely need to use them.


The rules as is don't bother me. Players already have incentive not to want a PC, themselves or another, to drop - loss of actions, loss of concentration, loss of buffs, because we like each other, etc. For those whom are bothered by this I don't find using the exhaustion rules an appropriate method to resolve it. It's a cure worse than the disease.




> - A trend has emerged in the thread of criticising 'healing' as just the average out put of healing spells. That is the base of healing, no where near it's peak and such an approach does healing a disservice.


This I don't get.




> - My only criticism of healing is I'd like more mundane options, Healer is perfect, I'd just rather we have some more options scattered throughout.


Absolutely. I love the Healer feat. I don't always take it, but when it's appropriate for my character I enjoy it a lot.

----------


## Witty Username

> "healing sucks" in appearance mainly because it isn't crucial, and building for it feels superfluous. It isn't,  but it feels that way if you expect it to be critical. If you build an effective top-up healer, you will have to accept that damage does scale faster than your healing, but that your top-up healing is actually keeping your party going a lot longer than otherwise, even if that isn't obvious.


I would add that even a dedicated (effective class-subclass, optimized build) healer, tends to use healing as a small subset of what they do, partially out of necessity because you need options for when the damage is incoming (you have the initiative) or isn't landing (enemies are being mitigated by other defensive options). This makes healing feel awkward as an option (or in my case, you feel like those options you do instead of healing are just better even on your specialized character).

Out of combat recovery is generally fine, there are some trap options like prayer of healing, and the errata'd healing spirit (I will admit this is more true for ranger than druid, but it is still awkward to not get effective healing unless you upcast twice). Aura of Vitality is the go-to and it will generally restore 1 character to full hp. Goodberry is also effective for an option for it at first level.

In combat, pop-up healing makes some options always worth something. Top-up healing options tend to be either class specific (lay on hands or celestial warlock), or primarily located at 1st level and 6th+. 
Or rather:
Cure wounds (loses shelf life as party increases in level)
Heal
Mass Heal/power word Heal

I feel that 2nd-5th level could get some additional burst healing options and AoE healing options are possibly undertuned. Adding this to the game I feel wouldn't unbalance the game so much as make healers me more inclined to use healing options (or less punished for doing so, depending on the enthusiasm of the player). Also, none of this would particularly impact out of combat healing, as mentioned, existing option already do that, especially if you use OG healing spirit or a less brutal nerf (healing is only once per round, 2*proficiency instead of 1+ability mod, add aura of vitality to the Ranger list, something like that).

Addressing concentration healing, I think this is generally a weak option in combat, as concentration tends to be very important for the effectiveness of any caster, and concentration healing spells will often cost that by opportunity or by loss. Out of combat they tend to work fine as recovery options, as this conflict is, at least usually, not present.

----------


## DomesticHausCat

I think healing should be nerfed actually. Not the spells or healing the classes offer. But the fact that sleeping 8 hours restores all your wounds is simply ridiculous to me. In my games you get your level of hp restored on a long rest plus whatever short rest healing abilities you use. That being said, using up all your spells before resting to heal is very much still a great idea.

----------


## Kane0

> I think healing should be nerfed actually. Not the spells or healing the classes offer. But the fact that sleeping 8 hours restores all your wounds is simply ridiculous to me. In my games you get your level of hp restored on a long rest plus whatever short rest healing abilities you use. That being said, using up all your spells before resting to heal is very much still a great idea.


Check the DMG, its got you covered. Its got more than just gritty realism as an option and I think people tend to miss that.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> For what it is worth, after his longer explanation of his position,  I am more in agreement with Dork Forge on this than in disagreement. While yes, choosing anything to get healing that works on others consumes build resources, he is right, as far as I can tell, that building to actually be good at healing does make healing "not suck" in 5e. Or, at least, he has made his case on that front better than anybody has made a counterargument. 
> 
> Personally,  I think healing doesn't suck in 5e also because healing is generously available in the form of full healing on long rests and hit dice rolls on short rests. Pop-up healing is more effective an top-up healing for most parties because of the things I have already said and the fact that _it is all you need_ in most parties. Building to be "the healer" rather than "a healer when it is really needed" is an option, but is unnecessary in most cases.
> 
> "healing sucks" in appearance mainly because it isn't crucial, and building for it feels superfluous. It isn't,  but it feels that way if you expect it to be critical. If you build an effective top-up healer, you will have to accept that damage does scale faster than your healing, but that your top-up healing is actually keeping your party going a lot longer than otherwise, even if that isn't obvious.


I'd agree with this, plenty of parties get along just fine by leaning on short and long rests, it really depends on the table whether or not you need to bring a substantial amount of healing in.




> I agree. I know upon first reading of 5E all those years ago I was perturbed by the amount of healing offered from spells, but with years of experience of play I have found it does the job. It's not supposed to heal PCs to full. It's supposed to keep them conscious to defeat the enemy. Out of combat healing is what heals PCs to full. I wouldn't mind if the healing spells were given a boost, but I appreciate that's done with class features. That more than one class can do healing means it gets spread around. When the cleric can't heal because he needs to do something else, the druid or bard can. Maybe because the druid or bard did it first (willingly and happily) the cleric doesn't have to and just gets the normal fun of doing something else.


I think it's a strength that's so available too, being able to get some healing really easily is a nice thing, the option of being good at healing if you want to be is a nice option for players that want to be that character.




> The rules as is don't bother me. Players already have incentive not to want a PC, themselves or another, to drop - loss of actions, loss of concentration, loss of buffs, because we like each other, etc. For those whom are bothered by this I don't find using the exhaustion rules an appropriate method to resolve it. It's a cure worse than the disease.


Different tastes, I will say that the majority of players I've actually played with don't like letting each other drop, but in the forum whiterooms the notion that you can yo-yo someone effectively all the time is pretty pervasive.




> This I don't get.


You don't get what I said, or you don't get people like that?




> Absolutely. I love the Healer feat. I don't always take it, but when it's appropriate for my character I enjoy it a lot.


One of my favourite healers to play is a Battle Smith with Healer, it's a lot of fun.




> I would add that even a dedicated (effective class-subclass, optimized build) healer, tends to use healing as a small subset of what they do, partially out of necessity because you need options for when the damage is incoming (you have the initiative) or isn't landing (enemies are being mitigated by other defensive options). This makes healing feel awkward as an option (or in my case, you feel like those options you do instead of healing are just better even on your specialized character).


Of course healing should be a subset of what you do, this isn't Overwatch (or similar) where a constant stream of healing is needed (or even really possible). But I don't think anyone has argued for healbots, just that if you want/need to heal it doesn't suck to do so.

As for what to do in combat, it's a judgement call. If you're leaning towards healing it's because there's a real chance something bad will happen. When it comes to times like that healing is more reliable than hoping for a control effect or attack to land.




> Out of combat recovery is generally fine, there are some trap options like prayer of healing, and the errata'd healing spirit (I will admit this is more true for ranger than druid, but it is still awkward to not get effective healing unless you upcast twice). Aura of Vitality is the go-to and it will generally restore 1 character to full hp. Goodberry is also effective for an option for it at first level.


I really don't get this, how is Prayer of Healing a trap option?




> In combat, pop-up healing makes some options always worth something. Top-up healing options tend to be either class specific (lay on hands or celestial warlock), or primarily located at 1st level and 6th+. 
> Or rather:
> Cure wounds (loses shelf life as party increases in level)
> Heal
> Mass Heal/power word Heal
> 
> I feel that 2nd-5th level could get some additional burst healing options and AoE healing options are possibly undertuned. Adding this to the game I feel wouldn't unbalance the game so much as make healers me more inclined to use healing options (or less punished for doing so, depending on the enthusiasm of the player). Also, none of this would particularly impact out of combat healing, as mentioned, existing option already do that, especially if you use OG healing spirit or a less brutal nerf (healing is only once per round, 2*proficiency instead of 1+ability mod, add aura of vitality to the Ranger list, something like that).


I think the game could stomach a healing spell in that niche at 4th level, Cure Wounds is perfectly serviceable when upcast but the gap between it and Heal is significant enough that something could fit inbetween.




> Addressing concentration healing, I think this is generally a weak option in combat, as concentration tends to be very important for the effectiveness of any caster, and concentration healing spells will often cost that by opportunity or by loss. Out of combat they tend to work fine as recovery options, as this conflict is, at least usually, not present.


Really depends on the situation, not a first option/go-to, but a stream of HP can be your best option sometimes. AoV turned a TPK against a Vampire and some spawn and wolves in a mine into a PC win in one of my games. For the Druid it was the best option she had available when both the Fighter and Paladin went down, throwing healing out as a bonus action every turn there after was far more valuable than anything she could have been concentrating on.




> I think healing should be nerfed actually. Not the spells or healing the classes offer. But the fact that sleeping 8 hours restores all your wounds is simply ridiculous to me. In my games you get your level of hp restored on a long rest plus whatever short rest healing abilities you use. That being said, using up all your spells before resting to heal is very much still a great idea.


I like level+Con to make it a bit more individual, but yeah it's really a high superhero level effect by default.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> For what it is worth, after his longer explanation of his position,  I am more in agreement with Dork Forge on this than in disagreement. While yes, choosing anything to get healing that works on others consumes build resources, he is right, as far as I can tell, that building to actually be good at healing does make healing "not suck" in 5e. Or, at least, he has made his case on that front better than anybody has made a counterargument. 
> 
> Personally,  I think healing doesn't suck in 5e also because healing is generously available in the form of full healing on long rests and hit dice rolls on short rests. Pop-up healing is more effective an top-up healing for most parties because of the things I have already said and the fact that _it is all you need_ in most parties. Building to be "the healer" rather than "a healer when it is really needed" is an option, but is unnecessary in most cases.
> 
> "healing sucks" in appearance mainly because it isn't crucial, and building for it feels superfluous. It isn't,  but it feels that way if you expect it to be critical. If you build an effective top-up healer, you will have to accept that damage does scale faster than your healing, but that your top-up healing is actually keeping your party going a lot longer than otherwise, even if that isn't obvious.


Your point about SR and LR healing is a good one.  If a character with healing spells was having to use them anyway, then use during combat would be incentivized, as would healing between encounters.  Why let a character's hp drop if you're going to have to heal them later anyway? As things stand, making to the next rest gets a good benefit in this regard, then spell slots can be freed up for other things if you want.

----------


## Phhase

What about bringing negative hitpoints back? The problem with healing is that your last hitpoint is the only one that matters, because overkill damage doesn't have any effect. If you died at -10, then allowing yourself to fall to 0 or lower before yoyoing back up would be more dangerous, given that you could easily die in a single hit, even while at positive but low hitpoints.

----------


## Kane0

> What about bringing negative hitpoints back? The problem with healing is that your last hitpoint is the only one that matters, because overkill damage doesn't have any effect. If you died at -10, then allowing yourself to fall to 0 or lower before yoyoing back up would be more dangerous, given that you could easily die in a single hit, even while at positive but low hitpoints.


Bringing back neg HP and/or the bloodied condition.

----------


## Pex

> You don't get what I said, or you don't get people like that?


Both, sort of. I'm not understanding what the issue is. Doesn't matter to me. It reads too technical so lacks value as an argument for or against, meaning lacks value to me to be concerned about. If others care let them hash it out. I'm not in that.




> One of my favourite healers to play is a Battle Smith with Healer, it's a lot of fun.


Been there. Done that. Gets better when they allowed the Steel Defender to give healing potions as its action, so bonus action for the Battle Smith to command it. As a personal choice at 11th level I chose 2nd level Cure Wounds for my spell storing item to have a "Wand of Cure Wounds". 20 INT so that's 10 times 2d8 + 5 healing per day. It's been awesome.

----------


## Theodoxus

I've been thinking on this. Here's my quick and dirty, that I'm sure is gonna get a lot of hate.

1) Drop all healing spells 1 level. Yes, this makes Healing Word and Cure Wounds cantrips.
2) (N)PCs can only receive magical healing "Con mod + Proficiency Bonus number of times per Short Rest" (minimum 1 for those crazy 'living on the edge' folk). You can receive a maximum number of magical healings "Con score times per Long Rest". If you're out of times, the heal just doesn't work - your body just can't take the strain of additional forced repair.

1a) Make only HW a cantrip, allow Cure Wounds to remain a leveled spell, and allow it to not count "as magical healing" or "against the number of times you can be magically healed" - whichever. CW is generally a bear of a spell to get off, especially when you have HW also available.

3) Edge cases - Healing Light, Lay on Hands, Preserve Life: I wouldn't count them as magical healing for these purposes, but I wouldn't argue against it either.

What this does: Limits yo-yoing without making it punitive (outside of the Con Mod+1 attempt). I would probably rule that the healing acts as Spare the Dying: that while the body might not heal, it does at least stop from dying. StD cantrip can then be eliminated, or not - doesn't much matter to me.
It also brings back that MMORPG feel to healing without making it grossly overpowered (outside I suppose of healing the whole town with HW over the course of an afternoon..) 
It gives agency back to the players - those who like to be topped off all the time, know they have a limited pool to do so, but have some "unlimited" options to obtain them. 
It gives every class a desire to take a short rest more often. A first level, 12 Con character would require 4 short rests to get the full healing benefit. 

Numbers might need a bit of playing with, but I think it would make healing better all around.

----------


## Kane0

Counter-proposal: If you are dropping all healing spells 1 spell level, HW lets the recipient spend 1 hit die and CW lets the recipient spend hit die plus add both the recipients con mod and the casters casting mod. Both progress with one extra hit die that can be spent at levels 5, 11 and 17

So basically a variant of healing surges.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Both, sort of. I'm not understanding what the issue is. Doesn't matter to me. It reads too technical so lacks value as an argument for or against, meaning lacks value to me to be concerned about. If others care let them hash it out. I'm not in that.


I'll try and clarify: People have been treating 'healing' as just averaging a spell, like 7.5 for a tier 1 Cure Wounds. However, I haven't seen anyone talk about healing spells used by any actual healers, they're just talking about the base spells like that's all healing amounts to, and it should be better.

My point of view is that is an incomplete view of healing in 5E, basically just looking at the floor, then wanting to raise that floor without any consideration for the various heal-boosting subclasses. Even when pointed out that real healers have features to boost spells, people have tended to just... ignore or skate past that. I haven't seen anyone say that optimized healing is bad, just spells on their own.




> Been there. Done that. Gets better when they allowed the Steel Defender to give healing potions as its action, so bonus action for the Battle Smith to command it. As a personal choice at 11th level I chose 2nd level Cure Wounds for my spell storing item to have a "Wand of Cure Wounds". 20 INT so that's 10 times 2d8 + 5 healing per day. It's been awesome.


I like a mechanical panther for my Steel Defender, so healing potions feels wrong, but I like the idea of CW SSI.

2d8 though, how come you're treating it as upcast?

----------


## Goobahfish

Problems:
* Proactive Healing has no numerical advantage over Reactive Healing.
* Reactive Healing enables 'artificial hitpoints' by completely mitigating any damage which reduces a character below zero hitpoints.

Solutions:
* Remove zero hit point limit (i.e., introduce negative hit points)
* Provide a benefit to Proactive Healing (hard) or punish Reactive healing (easy).

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Problems:
> * Proactive Healing has no numerical advantage over Reactive Healing.
> * Reactive Healing enables 'artificial hitpoints' by completely mitigating any damage which reduces a character below zero hitpoints.
> 
> Solutions:
> * Remove zero hit point limit (i.e., introduce negative hit points)
> * Provide a benefit to Proactive Healing (hard) or punish Reactive healing (easy).


This doesn't take into account unfavourable initiatives or PCs having something active that they would lose should they hit 0 (concentration, Rage, power ups etc.). 

I'd also argue that proactive does have a numerical advantage, since you're adding to their current HP instead of starting from 0.

----------


## Segev

It is a very intentional design decision that healing before you're injured is hard to do, and only grants temporary hp for the most part, with all that entails. You're not supposed to burn all your spells to pile mountains of hp on at the start of the day. If this is not what you mean by "proactive healing," please clarify what you do mean.

But healing is reactive (as I understand the terms to mean) by its very nature. And 5e is very much designed to rely on it being that way. Hp are the primary attrition resource of the game. While having means to raise them back up is fine, having ways to proactively increase them well beyond maximum alters the combat balance enormously.

----------


## Goobahfish

> This doesn't take into account unfavourable initiatives or PCs having something active that they would lose should they hit 0 (concentration, Rage, power ups etc.).


This is a valid point. Ending concentration is one of the punishments for reactive healing.




> I'd also argue that proactive does have a numerical advantage, since you're adding to their current HP instead of starting from 0.


This is categorically false. Whenever you hit zero-hit points, you negate any overflow. In any circumstance where you heal after being injured it is identical or better numerically to healing prior to being damaged. In the non-zero range there is no difference. In the zero case:
Consider:
HP = 10
Take 12 damage, heal 6. OR Heal 6, take 12 damage.
The first gives you 6HP, the second gives you 4.




> It is a very intentional design decision that healing before you're injured is hard to do, and only grants temporary hp for the most part, with all that entails. You're not supposed to burn all your spells to pile mountains of hp on at the start of the day. If this is not what you mean by "proactive healing," please clarify what you do mean.
> 
> But healing is reactive (as I understand the terms to mean) by its very nature. And 5e is very much designed to rely on it being that way. Hp are the primary attrition resource of the game. While having means to raise them back up is fine, having ways to proactively increase them well beyond maximum alters the combat balance enormously.


This may be a misunderstanding of my intent. By proactive, I mean healing prior to injury to prevent being killed. By reactive I mean healing post injury to undo the effect of the injury. As per my above example, one is strictly better than the other.

---

On the broader point of existing punishments (losing power-ups). There is also falling prone which makes you 'temporarily more vulnerable' which is bad (more advantages) though this is dependent on murdering models on zero HP. Undoing prone isn't really a punishment given how minimal its effect is.

As it stands, the punishments for falling to zero are pretty weak so running the risk of ignoring proactive healing and favouring reactive healing is generally the 'correct' strategy at baseline with 'exceptions'. Another example is 'maybe you won't get hit' so risking getting hit and plugging the gap with a Healing Word is a superior strategy than proactively using a healing spell.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

Other "punishments" for falling to 0:
* No longer a valid source of sneak attack, gimping any rogues who go between you and the source of healing
* Much more likely to die outright, since all it takes is three sources of damage (or two melee hits, which are advantage), plus you're that much closer to death by massive damage outright.
* Several monsters have detrimental (to the party) features that trigger on reducing someone to 0 HP (everything from the gnolls who get a free attack on someone else to the barghest _eating your soul_)
* Unless the turn order is _just right_ (healer goes before the downed player but after all monsters), there's a large chance of you losing a turn outright
* Can't use any number of self-heals
* If you're the healer...the party is kinda in trouble
* Loss of movement _even if the turn order is perfect_ (standing from prone costs movement)
* most importantly _loss of fun_ from having to sit there and just roll a death save instead of doing something interesting.
* you're unlikely to survive an OA, where proactive healing can get you out of non-crit danger there (because most monsters scale via attacks, not sheer damage per attack). This means you can withdraw to somewhere safer.
* (roleplay) the psychological effect of almost dying is non-trivial if you're actually playing anything other than a diehard zealot character or a chess piece.

Generally, the loss from going to 0 > the loss from a "sub-optimal" heal as long as the .

----------


## Dork_Forge

> This is categorically false.


It.. really isn't




> Whenever you hit zero-hit points, you negate any overflow. In any circumstance where you heal after being injured it is identical or better numerically to healing prior to being damaged. In the non-zero range there is no difference. In the zero case:
> Consider:
> HP = 10
> Take 12 damage, heal 6. OR Heal 6, take 12 damage.
> The first gives you 6HP, the second gives you 4.


*The second means you didn't start dying in between.*

Like, seriously, this kind of thinking entirely ignores that the PC has dropped to 0, which is realistically the way characters are most likely to die after the first few levels, nevermind the various downsides.

It feels like you're deeming 'numerical advantage' as HP at the end of combat? Which... why? Proactive healing (in your example) leaves you with 4 HP vs 6 HP, _but you were closer to healing using the reactive route._

I also haven't really seen that many times where a character is dropped by significant excess damage, to the point where this method would have really been appealing.




> On the broader point of existing punishments (losing power-ups). There is also falling prone which makes you 'temporarily more vulnerable' which is bad (more advantages) though this is dependent on murdering models on zero HP. Undoing prone isn't really a punishment given how minimal its effect is.


I'd say that for a lot of characters, losing half their movement is also a pretty significant downside, since it severely limits your ability to flee what just dropped you.





> As it stands, the punishments for falling to zero are pretty weak so running the risk of ignoring proactive healing and favouring reactive healing is generally the 'correct' strategy at baseline with 'exceptions'. Another example is 'maybe you won't get hit' so risking getting hit and plugging the gap with a Healing Word is a superior strategy than proactively using a healing spell.


You really can't blanketly declare a 'superior strategy' for something so contextual. Is it superior for a caster that's concentrating? That's an extremely common scenario. Is it superior for the Raging Barbarian? That's literally their whole thing.

The reactive healing thing is strongest in whiterooms where there are no downsides, but the downsides are actually pretty common in a lot of play.

----------


## Pex

> I'll try and clarify: People have been treating 'healing' as just averaging a spell, like 7.5 for a tier 1 Cure Wounds. However, I haven't seen anyone talk about healing spells used by any actual healers, they're just talking about the base spells like that's all healing amounts to, and it should be better.
> 
> My point of view is that is an incomplete view of healing in 5E, basically just looking at the floor, then wanting to raise that floor without any consideration for the various heal-boosting subclasses. Even when pointed out that real healers have features to boost spells, people have tended to just... ignore or skate past that. I haven't seen anyone say that optimized healing is bad, just spells on their own.


5E healing is better now than it was. When 5E first came out Life Cleric was it for class features to boost healing. Paladin has Lay On Hands but not quite the same thing. Healing spells get their reputation from then. Even accepting the healing spells as the floor some may argue the floor is too low despite class features.




> I like a mechanical panther for my Steel Defender, so healing potions feels wrong, but I like the idea of CW SSI.
> 
> 2d8 though, how come you're treating it as upcast?


Why wouldn't it be? I'm allowed up to second level spells. Cure Wounds at a 2nd level spell slot is a 2nd level spell. If you need a comparison, Wish can safely duplicate Magic Missile as if cast from an 8th level spell slot. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation, but the DM is fine with it.

It is unfortunate the Alchemist's boost to healing wouldn't work with the Spell Storing Item because the class feature specifies you need to cast the spell with alchemist supplies as the spell focus which the Spell Storing Item doesn't do.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> 5E healing is better now than it was. When 5E first came out Life Cleric was it for class features to boost healing. Paladin has Lay On Hands but not quite the same thing. Healing spells get their reputation from then.


Oh it's 100% better than back then, but it isn't 2014 anymore and the same arguments involve Healing Spirit, which is a Xanathar's spell. I get people can get hung up in the past, though.




> Even accepting the healing spells as the floor some may argue the floor is too low despite class features.


They could, that's part of my problem, so far people are really just ignoring that those healers exist for context. It would be something else entirely if they acknowledged it and didn't like the floor.





> Why wouldn't it be? I'm allowed up to second level spells. Cure Wounds at a 2nd level spell slot is a 2nd level spell. If you need a comparison, Wish can safely duplicate Magic Missile as if cast from an 8th level spell slot. Maybe it's a matter of interpretation, but the DM is fine with it.


Personal interpretation is that you choose a 1st level spell, and since there's no higher level slot involved, it's a 1st level spell. I don't think it breaks anything to be 2nd level, but I also don't think it's necessary or the Artificer needs that boost.




> It is unfortunate the Alchemist's boost to healing wouldn't work with the Spell Storing Item because the class feature specifies you need to cast the spell with alchemist supplies as the spell focus which the Spell Storing Item doesn't do.


Hmm, I can see that RAW since it says 'produce effect' instead of casting, though as a DM I'd let them get the bonus if they made their alchemist supplies their SSI, which they can do. Same with the damage bonus for anything that's applicable. Couldn't blame a DM for going RAW either though.

----------


## Goobahfish

> It.. really isn't


I mean... I don't know what to do with this? Is this a rejection of the definition of numerically?
Healing after being attacked can only result in a HP total which is equal to or higher than healing prior to being attacked. This is just a fact of the way the system works. One might argue things like concentration have indirect effects on numbers, but that wasn't the point I was making.

Perhaps I should clarify my remarks and premises.

The game of D&D largely revolves around a competition between damage output. If one side reduces the members of the other side to zero hit points it is considered a 'win'. Now obviously this isn't all of D&D but it is the basic premise of a 'combat-style' D&D. Kill the goblins or die trying.

So... when considering the concept of healing, I am looking at it in this context.




> *The second means you didn't start dying in between.*


With spells like Healing Word, I have found 'dying in between' a rather 'nothing event' in all of my games. It seems to have little or no consequence on gameplay at all. This is of course anecdotal but there are reasons why this seems true.




> It feels like you're deeming 'numerical advantage' as HP at the end of combat? Which... why? Proactive healing (in your example) leaves you with 4 HP vs 6 HP, _but you were closer to healing using the reactive route._


No, this example isn't at the end of combat. It is at the end of a 'bout'. The indication is that the second character (reactively healed) has a better chance of surviving one more blow than the first character (proactively healed). It won't happen every time, but were they to take 5 damage subsequently, the latter strategy would be clearly superior. The point is that numerically, healing after being dropped allows you to ignore overflow damage whereas healing beforehand doesn't.





> I also haven't really seen that many times where a character is dropped by significant excess damage, to the point where this method would have really been appealing.


But you therefore have seen it? Just because something is not particularly common, doesn't refute the argument.





> I'd say that for a lot of characters, losing half their movement is also a pretty significant downside, since it severely limits your ability to flee what just dropped you.


In previous editions, standing up provoked free attacks from neighbouring creatures (which was very punitive). In 5e losing half your movement is a very small penalty. For frontline characters, they probably don't care at all, and for other characters leaving immediate threat range may provoke opportunity attacks etc. Strategically, the loss of ~15 ft of movement is not nothing, but it is usually a very small inconvenience. Many characters will just stand up and continue to attack/cast spells etc as if nothing happened.




> You really can't blanketly declare a 'superior strategy' for something so contextual. Is it superior for a caster that's concentrating? That's an extremely common scenario. Is it superior for the Raging Barbarian? That's literally their whole thing.
> 
> The reactive healing thing is strongest in whiterooms where there are no downsides, but the downsides are actually pretty common in a lot of play.


As I said, those are exceptions. Barbarian rages, concentration etc are valid reasons not to adopt this strategy (i.e., make it non-optimal), but those are exceptions. A fighter or rogue for example have no such downsides as would many paladins. A ranger might lose hunters mark etc. but the damage that dropped them to zero might lose concentration spells anyway. Moreover, my point about uncertainty remains. If a character has... let's say 10 HP remaining. Does it make sense to bolster them? In any normal context, you would probably say yes. They are nearly dead. That could be bad. 

But in D&D... well, we have to be really worried they will take 10 HP damage. 

Lets play this out:
*Proactive Strategy:*
Guaranteed Benefits:
* None
Guaranteed Downsides:
* I waste my action which could have been used to 'disable monsters' (damaging/spells etc)
Risks:
* My healing is insufficient and my ally goes down anyway
* My ally is not damaged and so the healing didn't have any effect on the battle

*Reactive Strategy:*
Guaranteed Benefits:
* I get my action
* My ally's health will be either equal to or higher than the proactive strategy
Guaranteed Downsides:
* None
Risks:
* My ally might lose their concentration/buff thing
* My ally might lose some movement

Sometime the proactive strategy makes more sense, but it is in general the less optimal strategy. In one, you get a guaranteed benefit (more actions, higher health) at the risk of some modest downsides. The the other you spend actions for an uncertain benefit. Perhaps I am understating the importance of concentration effects etc, but in my experience I don't have four players with concentration buffs on all the time. Usually concentration characters don't receive huge amounts of damage because that is kind of the point of them (to avoid combat).

----------


## animorte

I have a few problems with this




> Lets play this out:
> *Proactive Strategy:*
> Guaranteed Benefits:
> * None
> Guaranteed Downsides:
> * I waste my action which could have been used to 'disable monsters' (damaging/spells etc)
> Risks:
> * My healing is insufficient and my ally goes down anyway
> * My ally is not damaged and so the healing didn't have any effect on the battle
> ...


First of all, nothing is guaranteed, benefits and downsides alike.Evaluating risks, however, is a valuable approach.Healing as a _wasted_ action is a matter of perspective, and preference, quite frankly.The allys concentration youre saving could very easily be more valuable than your own action. This is directly relevant to the state of combat and precisely _what_ they are concentrating on compared to what your action is trying to accomplish.

Your breakdown, while certainly a good foundation for building upon and adjusting, is too specific in its current state, perhaps because of personal experience and preference. Thats fine, but not always accurate.

----------


## Yakk

1. Make being at low HP more threatening.  Before you turn fights up to 11, start hitting downed PCs.

Parts of this:
(a) Hide death saves pass/fails.  This increases tension.  You only get to know the number *after* you get up.

(b) Add "you get a death save when damaged while at 0 HP".  This might seem like it makes it easier on the PCs, but instead what it means is the DM *should not pull punches* when attacking KO players.

(c) Accumulate death save failures until rests.

The point is *being low means you should retreat*.  And once down, enemies will throw finishing blows at their foes almost universally (triggering 2 death save failure chances) before moving on.  A healing word might bring you back up, but the only reasonably thing to do is run like hell, as you probably have some death save failures already and next time you might not get up again.

With the default "auto failure", the DM (not the dice) is deciding if you die.  With "you make a death save, 2 if a crit" the dice are.  And it being a habit of *all* foes to throw a finishing blow on a downed foe (but only one!  At least the first time someone drops.) makes being at low HP a serious danger.

"World model" wise, I'd say that non-heroic characters don't get death saves with the same chance of success (I suppose then need a 18+); so against a non-heroic foe, 2 death save rolls plus one next turn is pretty much finishes them off.  So this is even rational - you stabbed them when they are down, they didn't get up, they must be basically dead.  Move on.

2. Use Gritty rests.  While you might think it just changes adventure pace, that is exactly what it does.

Taking a week off from adventuring (allow downtime) allows certain kinds of world changes to occur that cannot plausibly occur from a night's rest.  Similarly, a short rest moves the plot.

As a DM, take this into account.  Build adventures based off of it -- use Scenes (~3 medium encounters) and Chapters (~9 medium encounters) to build your adventure, not encounters.  A Scene is a collection of encounters that, if someone took a break for a night after engaging it, would result in the world changing (a "lost" scene).  Chapters are similar, but the loss is larger, and the scale is bigger, and it takes a good 3-7 dyas for the loss to occur "passively".

I'd also add in some typical long rest recovery stuff in short rests by expending HD.

HP/HD attrition becomes real.  And because the DM has a planned "loss" condition for "we go away and come back when rested", the consequences of running out of HD/HP are something PCs will experience concretely.

3. Optionally, require PCs to burn a HD to get magically healed.  (This is right out of 4e) - magical healing enhances your own vitality, it doesn't replace it.  The spent HD also adds to your healing.  Some powerful spells (Heal, Mass Heal, Regeneration, and similar) don't require HD, and ditto for necrotic life drain.

If you do this you might also give a boost to short rest HD recovery.

This both boosts magical healing in combat (the extra HD is useful) and makes magical healing spam less useful (as it drains your HD).

----------


## Segev

> I mean... I don't know what to do with this? Is this a rejection of the definition of numerically?
> Healing after being attacked can only result in a HP total which is equal to or higher than healing prior to being attacked. This is just a fact of the way the system works. One might argue things like concentration have indirect effects on numbers, but that wasn't the point I was making.
> 
> Perhaps I should clarify my remarks and premises.
> 
> The game of D&D largely revolves around a competition between damage output. If one side reduces the members of the other side to zero hit points it is considered a 'win'. Now obviously this isn't all of D&D but it is the basic premise of a 'combat-style' D&D. Kill the goblins or die trying.
> 
> So... when considering the concept of healing, I am looking at it in this context.
> 
> ...


Okay, so you're using "proactive" the way another poster used "top-up," and "reactive" the way most of us have been using "pop-up." Is that accurate?

Assuming it is so, I think you're still wrong. Your "reactive" list of guaranteed benefits says your ally's health will be "equal to or higher" than the "proactive strategy," which is strictly untrue. It will be categorically lower, because the proactive "top-up" healing will actively add hp to his total, guaranteeing he has more hp than if you don't heal him (per the "reactive" strategy of waiting to offer "pop-up" healing). 

In general, I agree that pop-up healing is the superior strategy in 5e, because of the "stop at 0" rule for hp damage (barring cases of massive damage killing you). But your analysis is flawed.

----------


## Kane0

With the exception of the Sorcerer who is twinning haste on two other party members, one of which may or may not be the healer. You dont want him going down.

----------


## Witty Username

> I mean... I don't know what to do with this? Is this a rejection of the definition of numerically?
> Healing after being attacked can only result in a HP total which is equal to or higher than healing prior to being attacked. This is just a fact of the way the system works. One might argue things like concentration have indirect effects on numbers, but that wasn't the point I was making.
> 
> Perhaps I should clarify my remarks and premises.
> 
> The game of D&D largely revolves around a competition between damage output. If one side reduces the members of the other side to zero hit points it is considered a 'win'. Now obviously this isn't all of D&D but it is the basic premise of a 'combat-style' D&D. Kill the goblins or die trying.
> 
> So... when considering the concept of healing, I am looking at it in this context.
> 
> ...


This is a lot to say:
If your level 1 fighter is at 4 HP, heals for 7 and gets smacked by a bugbear for 11 damage. That 7 didn't do what you wanted it to do. (To maintain a shred of credibility on my part, these were numbers I could get fast, and be tangible, not meant to be an argument, I who just said I might throw three of mind flayers at a level 11 party of sufficient size, and have actually thrown an Intellect devourer at a level 1 party without apology, think that a bugbear at a level 1 party is a bad idea for how deadly it is)

I mean, I think I agree, this reads as very obtuse, and doesn't really express why proactive healing doesn't always work as advertised.

Like I don't care how much runoff I had when I am knocked to 0 (unless I am taking enough damage for an outright kill, which my table of mostly deadly encounters doesn't actually run into much). I care that I get healed, than hit 0 anyway or I get healed then took more damage because the thing doing the damage is not dead yet. 
--
Oh, I believe I owe a response for my prayer of healing comment. My problems with prayer of healing is that mostly its use case tends to be rare (based on personal experience), you want to use it when multiple  party members are badly hurt (relative to when you first get it) and don't need/can't short rest, but multiple party members being badly hurt tends to mean rest resources used, so, usually the party wants a short rest.  So it is when you would want to short rest and can't due to time constraints or no hit dice left, which I have found that combination doesn't occur often. My play group likes fighters, monks and warlocks so short rest resources are pretty common. And then it's scaling tends to mean it loses relevance after the transition to Tier 2. This is assuming a character that prepares/knows cure wounds, as it and prayer of healing are equally effective healing a single character.

This is also an observation that people who I see take Prayer of Healing are more likely to forget short rests exist. But I am fine with that being listed as a personal problem with my playgroup.

----------


## Tanarii

Pop up healing downsides:
- you will start prone, and dropped anything you were carrying

Risks:
- you may be killed by the enemy with 2 hits.
- you may take a single melee crit and fail 2 death saves, which carry over next time you go back down.
- you may lose your turn and have to make a death save
- once healed, you're in far greater danger of outright death from massive damage
- you're usually going right back down again in one hit.
- you might be dragged off by the enemy before you can be healed.

Benefits:
- damage below 0 is absorbed as long as it doesn't kill you outright, effectively free healing

The benefit is clearly huge.  But usually it's very risky.  No player wants to their character to go down, when they do it's always a panic mode to get them back up. And usually away from danger if possible, so they don't go right back down.  

And IMO most intelligent enemies will make sure you stay down next time. (Unintelligent beasts are probably more likely to drag off a downed hero to snack on later.)

----------


## Witty Username

> - you may take a single melee crit and fail 2 death saves, which carry over next time you go back down.


I think that is a common houserule but not how the actual rules work, both your successful death saves and failed death saves reset to zero when you become stable or regain hp even the failures from damage and crits.

----------


## Yakk

So, why does healing suck?

If healing can meaningfully match and exceed monster damage, then combat is pure attrition; there is never a danger of dropping.

If healing is weaker than monster damage then healing at best delays the inevidble.

I find that a heal-heavy combat game is one where combats are either extremely long attrition (damage vs healing), or rocket tag where anyone at less than full HP gets dropped before someone can heal.  I've seen both in D&D in the past.

I don't think I've seen a game where healers cast a lot of healing that wasn't one of those, outside of 4e where healing is layered with other effects.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> So, why does healing suck?
> 
> If healing can meaningfully match and exceed monster damage, then combat is pure attrition; there is never a danger of dropping.
> 
> +If healing is weaker than monster damage then healing at best delays the inevidble.+
> 
> I find that a heal-heavy combat game is one where combats are either extremely long attrition (damage vs healing), or rocket tag where anyone at less than full HP gets dropped before someone can heal.  I've seen both in D&D in the past.
> 
> I don't think I've seen a game where healers cast a lot of healing that wasn't one of those, outside of 4e where healing is layered with other effects.


In a TTRPG (as opposed to an MMO), the option marked in + signs is my strong preference. Rocket tag and padded sumo both are failure states when you don't have "mechanics" to respond to. And it's a knife edge between the two in my experience.

And if you need a dedicated, specialized healer, then that produces strong, unwelcome (in my mind) constraints on parties. Having one should be a notable boon, letting you do things you couldn't otherwise. But should neither be necessary nor overpowering.

----------


## Goobahfish

> I have a few problems with this
> 
> 
> First of all, nothing is guaranteed, benefits and downsides alike.Evaluating risks, however, is a valuable approach.Healing as a _wasted_ action is a matter of perspective, and preference, quite frankly.The allys concentration youre saving could very easily be more valuable than your own action. This is directly relevant to the state of combat and precisely _what_ they are concentrating on compared to what your action is trying to accomplish.
> 
> Your breakdown, while certainly a good foundation for building upon and adjusting, is too specific in its current state, perhaps because of personal experience and preference. Thats fine, but not always accurate.


I suppose I should clarify. When I say 'wasted' (it is needlessly negative... used is more appropriate) I mean you spent your action casting the healing spell (whatever it was). This is a guaranteed outcome of the strategy (because that is what the strategy entails). Likewise, if you don't heal you are guaranteed to have that action to spend on other things (which may yet fail).




> Okay, so you're using "proactive" the way another poster used "top-up," and "reactive" the way most of us have been using "pop-up." Is that accurate?
> 
> Assuming it is so, I think you're still wrong. Your "reactive" list of guaranteed benefits says your ally's health will be "equal to or higher" than the "proactive strategy," which is strictly untrue. It will be categorically lower, because the proactive "top-up" healing will actively add hp to his total, guaranteeing he has more hp than if you don't heal him (per the "reactive" strategy of waiting to offer "pop-up" healing). 
> 
> In general, I agree that pop-up healing is the superior strategy in 5e, because of the "stop at 0" rule for hp damage (barring cases of massive damage killing you). But your analysis is flawed.



Ha ha, yes I have been using a slightly more generic term (proactive - healing before damage, vs reactive - healing after damage).

In terms of HP, I am assuming there is one available healing action (either used before or after the threat). Clearly healing rather than not healing 'has an effect'. But the question is mostly one of timing. If you can save an action during combat and spend a 'non-action' (i.e., healing during down-time) you are definitely better off assuming you can use your action to do anything helpful.




> With the exception of the Sorcerer who is twinning haste on two other party members, one of which may or may not be the healer. You dont want him going down.


Ha ha. Also the NPC you were escorting who explodes on death.




> Pop up healing downsides:
> - you will start prone, and dropped anything you were carrying
> 
> Risks:
> - you may be killed by the enemy with 2 hits.
> - you may take a single melee crit and fail 2 death saves, which carry over next time you go back down.
> - you may lose your turn and have to make a death save
> - once healed, you're in far greater danger of outright death from massive damage
> - you're usually going right back down again in one hit.
> ...


It is surprising how little a lot of this matters? Starting prone usually has very little effect. Dropping what you are carrying likewise usually has a minimal effect (free object interaction). All the other effects are somewhat similar. For example if you are being hit enough to be making death saves, getting healed is likely to do very little anyway.




> So, why does healing suck?
> If healing can meaningfully match and exceed monster damage, then combat is pure attrition; there is never a danger of dropping.
> If healing is weaker than monster damage then healing at best delays the inevitable.
> .


I think this basically shows where the design part of the game gets... 'hard'. If healing can mitigate damage then grindy stalemates occur. If it can't... then it has very non-linear utility (i.e. pop-up healing) or is generally always sub-optimal.

I think the fact that 'spell healing' has always been baked into D&D is a real problem of design. 5e tries to get around this by making most characters capable of 'emergency healing'. It would be rare to have a party where no healing was available and have that party still be viable. Without pop-up healing, the risk of player death and TPK goes up quite substantially. The resource system kind of encourages 'play till nearly-TPK'. Hence why I think pop-up healing was chosen as the design to buffer TPKs rather than letting players die by playing recklessly.

----------


## Segev

If you aren't a bulld-dedicated healer, top-up/proactive healing tends to be a mostly-wasted action due to the likelihood that it will not increase the number of actions  or even hits, sometimes  that it takes to down the target. However, it might. Especially against large numbers of lower-CR foes, which is also the most dangerous case to use pop-up healing: pop-up healing is most risky when you are likely to have two more creatures (or one more creature with at least two attacks, or two more attacks on the downing creature) in attack distance of the downed target before the healer's turn. Two more hits become four failed death saves, and then pop-up healing doesn't work anymore. 

So whether top-up/proactive healing is worthwhile depends somewhat on how many and what kind of foes are facing the prospective healing target. But top-up remains a big action sink, and it becomes a question of whether you better prevent the prospective healing target from taking more hits by buffing him or rebuffing the enemies, or by healing away part of the damage from various rounds of hits taken.

Often, for example, an upcast _hold person_ will deny more hits' worth of damage than a _cure wounds_ upcast to the same level would. 


Side thought: [i]healing spirit was nerfed because it healed way too much damage out of combat, as far as I understand it, but the nerfed maximum healing makes it less than useful in combat, too. It does upscale nicely, but still feels low for combat healing. 

What if, instead of a maximum number of times it can heal, it gave temporary hp, instead, and, when the spell ended, any creature with temporary hp from the spell could heal hp damage equal to the temporary hp they had when the spell ended?

----------


## Tanarii

> I think that is a common houserule but not how the actual rules work, both your successful death saves and failed death saves reset to zero when you become stable or regain hp even the failures from damage and crits.


Well now.  I've been house ruling without even realizing it. Very surprised I've never had a player call me on it.

----------


## sithlordnergal

See, I agree that healing is weak in 5e, but I personally would not change it. Mostly because changes result in one of three situations. Either:

A) Healing becomes too powerful, and nothing is ever a risk


B) Healing becomes too weak and you have to spend a lot more downtime to heal anything

or

C) There are penalties to pop-up healing that just create a death spiral, resulting in TPKs.


Now, it might just be how I run games, but whenever I make dungeons I always strive to leave my players at 1 to 2 hit points. I've gotten really good at it. My players usually get knocked out in final encounters for dungeons and things, if they're the party tank they usually go down multiple times in the encounter. My entire goal is to knock out half the party once over the course of the encounter. It gives the fights a lot more tension when you're constantly at death's door with few resources, and you have no idea if the enemy you're fighting has 1 hit point or 100. My players can't afford to waste a turn, or they're going down and will potentially die.

However, this sort of encounter building walks on a razor thin edge. Either I make the encounter too easy, and the players blow through it without any trouble, which isn't fun. Or I make them too hard, and the fight ends in a TPK, which also isn't fun. Now, I will state, I've never had a TPK in my entire time as a DM, something I'm rather proud of.

Messing with healing throws off that balance. Make healing stronger, and now you'll never have those tense moments outside of long, drawn out battles of attrition, which can be fun, but not for every boss fight. Make healing weaker, and all you do is increase the amount of downtime players will take. Give penalties to pop-up healing, and all you've done is make a death spiral that leads to a TPK.

----------


## LordShade

Do folks in this thread consider Twilight Cleric's bubble to be a healing ability? If yes, is this also too weak?

My personal opinion is that Twilight Cleric is way overpowered in comparison to everything else in the game save exploits like Simulacrum and Coffeelock.

I mostly agree with Dork Forge, and his conception of "floors" and "ceilings." To me, the Twilight Cleric is the ceiling of what a healer can do and I think this ceiling is way too high. The other healers are nicely tuned in my view. I'm fine with the floor being where it is.

edit - my PCs are level 6 and have a paladin, ranger, alchemist and necromancer. Nobody is a dedicated healer but everyone can contribute something to mitigation and triage over the course of a fight. I have thought a lot about four "off-healers" working together to stabilize a battle that's going badly and at least from a theorycraft perspective, it seems fine. At level 6 they have paladin LOH, ranger's bonus action Healing Spirit (he's a bow ranger so he is only losing Hunter's Mark), the Alchemist's 1d6+8 bonus action Healing Word, and the necromancer who will eventually have Life Transference and can also order a skeleton to administer a healing potion to a fallen ally.

I have offered them an idiot NPC healer follower on multiple occasions and they have turned it down. The only other thing I am thinking of giving them is an expensive consumable that offers a strong emergency burst heal of some kind, but Life Transference might be good enough. Or I might just give them a scroll with an upcasted version of Life Transference--that might do the trick.

edit2 - I love the suggestion of putting an upcasted CLW into a spell-storing item. That would let an Alchemist 1d6+10 bonus action Healing Word next to a 2d8+10 Cure Light Wounds out of a spell storing item using the main action, for 32.5 total healing. It's a really nice way to cast two leveled spells in the same round, both of which get the Alchemist's +5 bonus.

Combined with 50 points from the Paladin and ~36 from the Necromancer's Life Transference, that's pretty good overall. This party's main defensive weakness is that they don't have a refreshing source of temp HP. Maybe I should offer them a Ghallanda halfling with the Chef feat?

----------


## Kane0

The Necromancer isnt interested in Wither and Bloom?

----------


## LordShade

Don't know what Wither and Bloom is (will Google it).

The campaign is Eberron though. If it's a good spell I'll have it drop somewhere or give him an opportunity to research it.

----------


## Kane0

> Don't know what Wither and Bloom is (will Google it).
> 
> The campaign is Eberron though. If it's a good spell I'll have it drop somewhere or give him an opportunity to research it.


Its a 2nd level necromancy spell that does a little damage in an area and a little healing at the same time. Its not great at either but the fact that it does both at the same time and is a wizard spell makes it potentially worthwhile

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Assuming it is so, I think you're still wrong. Your "reactive" list of guaranteed benefits says your ally's health will be "equal to or higher" than the "proactive strategy," which is strictly untrue. It will be categorically lower, because the proactive "top-up" healing will actively add hp to his total, guaranteeing he has more hp than if you don't heal him (per the "reactive" strategy of waiting to offer "pop-up" healing).


Exactly.




> With the exception of the Sorcerer who is twinning haste on two other party members, one of which may or may not be the healer. You dont want him going down.


A very strong case for proactive healing, and one that I don't think would be uncommon if there was a Sorcerer in the party. Twinning concentration spells is fantastic.




> This is a lot to say:
> If your level 1 fighter is at 4 HP, heals for 7 and gets smacked by a bugbear for 11 damage. That 7 didn't do what you wanted it to do. (To maintain a shred of credibility on my part, these were numbers I could get fast, and be tangible, not meant to be an argument, I who just said I might throw three of mind flayers at a level 11 party of sufficient size, and have actually thrown an Intellect devourer at a level 1 party without apology, think that a bugbear at a level 1 party is a bad idea for how deadly it is)


Level 1 proactive healing is a bad example, since you can easily drop in a single hit. Heck, a Bugbear could reliably drop most 1st level characters on average damage alone.

Level 1, and probably level 2, are the worst case for proactive healing and the strongest for pop-up healing just due to the extremely low HP totals.




> Oh, I believe I owe a response for my prayer of healing comment. My problems with prayer of healing is that mostly its use case tends to be rare (based on personal experience), you want to use it when multiple  party members are badly hurt (relative to when you first get it) and don't need/can't short rest, but multiple party members being badly hurt tends to mean rest resources used, so, usually the party wants a short rest.  So it is when you would want to short rest and can't due to time constraints or no hit dice left, which I have found that combination doesn't occur often. My play group likes fighters, monks and warlocks so short rest resources are pretty common. And then it's scaling tends to mean it loses relevance after the transition to Tier 2. This is assuming a character that prepares/knows cure wounds, as it and prayer of healing are equally effective healing a single character.
> 
> This is also an observation that people who I see take Prayer of Healing are more likely to forget short rests exist. But I am fine with that being listed as a personal problem with my playgroup.


- Party composition is a factor, not all parties want short rests equally, for a table like yours I can see it's appeal dropping certainly

- IMO/IME there is a significant difference between getting 10 minutes of safety vs 1 hour, especially since some people do the whole walk and cast thing.

- You can be out of Hit Dice/not have enough to reliably heal. Whilst i know some players will say this never happens, at my tables it tends to be a genuine concern at all levels. This and the above are entirely dependent on the style of play, if you only have a couple of encounters per day, and lack meaningful attrition between, then Prayer of Healing is a poor choice for that kind of table, but that's not a reflection of the spell's design.

- It's a lot of hit points out of a 2nd level slot, like a massive amount. 72 hit points across 6 creatures (assuming +3 mod) is huge value, and 12 HP is a sizeable patch of hit points for a lot of frequently played levels.




> I mean... I don't know what to do with this? Is this a rejection of the definition of numerically?
> Healing after being attacked can only result in a HP total which is equal to or higher than healing prior to being attacked. This is just a fact of the way the system works. One might argue things like concentration have indirect effects on numbers, but that wasn't the point I was making.


I... really struggle to follow your logic here, and I think the issue is maybe conflation of 'attacked' and 'dropped to 0?' Because, if you're getting healed at all you've presumably been attacked (where that use of the word is a synonym for damage) in some way. There is no 'healing' before that happens, because there's nothing to heal.




> Perhaps I should clarify my remarks and premises.
> 
> The game of D&D largely revolves around a competition between damage output. If one side reduces the members of the other side to zero hit points it is considered a 'win'. Now obviously this isn't all of D&D but it is the basic premise of a 'combat-style' D&D. Kill the goblins or die trying.
> 
> So... when considering the concept of healing, I am looking at it in this context.


And I'd agree with that, but your default seems to be that letting a party member drop to 0 is fine and all you're looking at the HP afterwards. I don't think there's really that much point to comparing that to proactive healing like you are, dropping to 0 in that comparison is showing proactive healing working, not failing.




> With spells like Healing Word, I have found 'dying in between' a rather 'nothing event' in all of my games. It seems to have little or no consequence on gameplay at all. This is of course anecdotal but there are reasons why this seems true.


Yeah that's 100% anecdotal, because there are many reasons going down would be bad, and they're not exactly niche technicalities. I get the feeling table style is a huge differentiating factor here.

For example: In your games are monsters likely to attack a downed creature? Is collateral damage from other sources likely?




> No, this example isn't at the end of combat. It is at the end of a 'bout'. The indication is that the second character (reactively healed) has a better chance of surviving one more blow than the first character (proactively healed). It won't happen every time, but were they to take 5 damage subsequently, the latter strategy would be clearly superior. The point is that numerically, healing after being dropped allows you to ignore overflow damage whereas healing beforehand doesn't.


You're then just arbitrarily drawing lines to make that 'bout.,' arguably what you're doing is two bouts. 

In your example the characters get bopped twice, the reactive healing sees the character go down. You then just kind of assume nothing bad happens because of that, or whilst they're down and jump to comparing after they survive.

This approach also ignores PC agency, before the second attack hits that PC might heal on top of the top up, like Second Wind, or the top up combined with a damage reduction might make the difference between staying up or going down. 

It's just an incredibly specific way of looking at it that ignores way to many factors and makes too many favourable assumptions.




> But you therefore have seen it? Just because something is not particularly common, doesn't refute the argument.


Your argument hinges on probability, so of course how common something is matters. 

Your positive experiences with a PC going down seem to the be backbone of your opinion. I'm assuming that presumably going down has negatively affected a PC in someway in your experience at some point, so it would entirely be frequency you're going off, or you've been absurdly, odd-defyingly lucky and have never experienced it.




> In previous editions, standing up provoked free attacks from neighbouring creatures (which was very punitive). In 5e losing half your movement is a very small penalty. For frontline characters, they probably don't care at all, and for other characters leaving immediate threat range may provoke opportunity attacks etc. Strategically, the loss of ~15 ft of movement is not nothing, but it is usually a very small inconvenience. Many characters will just stand up and continue to attack/cast spells etc as if nothing happened.


Unless what put them down was at range, I disagree with this. If a character's go-to is to cast spells, ime they tend to want to get away from whatever just smacked them to 0, and that extra 15ftish absolutely matter. Just like a melee character can end up way short trying to move to their target at half speed (whether they kill what they were fighting, or the thing moves on whilst they're down).

Monsters tend to have a mobility edge on the average PC, losing half their movement is pretty harsh in a lot of situations. 




> As I said, those are exceptions. Barbarian rages, concentration etc are valid reasons not to adopt this strategy (i.e., make it non-optimal), but those are exceptions. A fighter or rogue for example have no such downsides as would many paladins. A ranger might lose hunters mark etc. but the damage that dropped them to zero might lose concentration spells anyway.


What? The majority of classes have default reasons to avoid this, classes that get no spellcasting built in are a minority, and one of them is the Barbarian who's whole thing is Rage.

And of those classes that don't have spellcasting (and aren't the Barbarian) have ways of having spells to concentrate on, some of them multiple ways. 

And then there are the various races and feats that give you things to concentrate or other. By the time you add up all of the various things a character could lose, including the opportunity to use reaction abilities they like using, it's really not that much of an exception. It's pretty likely it will happen at some point.

Moreover, my point about uncertainty remains. If a character has... let's say 10 HP remaining. Does it make sense to bolster them? In any normal context, you would probably say yes. They are nearly dead. That could be bad. 




> But in D&D... well, we have to be really worried they will take 10 HP damage. 
> 
> Lets play this out:
> *Proactive Strategy:*
> Guaranteed Benefits:
> * None
> Guaranteed Downsides:
> * I waste my action which could have been used to 'disable monsters' (damaging/spells etc)
> Risks:
> ...


- The guarantee is that the PC has more HP than before you did it.

- With a variety of bonus action healing and non-healing bonus actions to take I find the 'waste' thing a weak argument.

- If the ally goes down anyway then so what? You at least tried and gave them the chance, as long as you didn't throw a tiny amount of healing in a combat where you're likely to take more damage it's worth it. This is the same line of thinking that stops you throwing attacks or using save spells. _The game is built on chance._





> *Reactive Strategy:*
> Guaranteed Benefits:
> * I get my action
> * My ally's health will be either equal to or higher than the proactive strategy
> Guaranteed Downsides:
> * None
> Risks:
> * My ally might lose their concentration/buff thing
> * My ally might lose some movement


- It speaks volumes that a risk listed here isn't that your ally might just die. Or that you (as the healer in this situation) might go down, which given less targets for team monster, is more likely than the proactive version.

- Your action could fail to produce anything, with your logic I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a risk

- You list losing stuff as 'might,' there is no might, if they are concentrating, Raging etc. those things _will_ end. They _will_ lose half their movement. You will be aware of these things when you're making your decision, *it isn't a risk, it is a part of the decision when to heal.*




> *Sometime the proactive strategy makes more sense, but it is in general the less optimal strategy.* In one, you get a guaranteed benefit (more actions, higher health) at the risk of some modest downsides. The the other you spend actions for an uncertain benefit. Perhaps I am understating the importance of concentration effects etc, but in my experience I don't have four players with concentration buffs on all the time. Usually concentration characters don't receive huge amounts of damage because that is kind of the point of them (to avoid combat).


Entirely contextual, and you seem to be sweeping aside the contexts where it would be better. 

Again, I'm struck that 'get more actions' is attached to letting a PC down in your mind. Like... That is either entirely assuming PC safety/favourable initiative, or you're only thinking about the actions of a single PC, not the benefit of the party.




> I suppose I should clarify. When I say 'wasted' (it is needlessly negative... used is more appropriate) I mean you spent your action casting the healing spell (whatever it was). This is a guaranteed outcome of the strategy (because that is what the strategy entails). Likewise, if you don't heal you are guaranteed to have that action to spend on other things (which may yet fail).


And this ignores that action economy exists beyond 'your action.' 





> Ha ha, yes I have been using a slightly more generic term (proactive - healing before damage, vs reactive - healing after damage).


I would reword this to healing before the next hit vs healing when the PC drops to zero, which is what it seems to be.




> In terms of HP, I am assuming there is one available healing action (either used before or after the threat). Clearly healing rather than not healing 'has an effect'. But the question is mostly one of timing. If you can save an action during combat and spend a 'non-action' (i.e., healing during down-time) you are definitely better off assuming you can use your action to do anything helpful.


Healing outside of combat is obviously better, but the whole point of proactive healing is that the PC could conceivably die. If you know that won't happen then there's no point to healing in combat, but the whole point is that you don't know.

So, it sounds like you prefer reactive healing because you're hedging your bets you won't need to do it at all, and in your experience bad stuff doesn't happen at 0 HP.




> Ha ha. Also the NPC you were escorting who explodes on death.


It feels like you think that what Kane0 said would be unlikely, if you have a Sorcerer in the party Twinning concentration spells isn't particularly unlikely.




> It is surprising how little a lot of this matters? Starting prone usually has very little effect. Dropping what you are carrying likewise usually has a minimal effect (free object interaction). All the other effects are somewhat similar. For example if you are being hit enough to be making death saves, getting healed is likely to do very little anyway.


This... what? 

Dropping things: Object interaction is great, as long as you weren't holding two things, or want to pick something back up and draw something else... like a healing potion maybe.

Prone: If you heal the PC that dropped, but the monster goes first, then that PC can get whacked at advantage. Letting them drop to 0HP can make it more likely to keep happening.

Getting hit enough to make Death Saves: This logic is also flawed, since you're likely getting hit at advantage for those death saves, and one hit can be two failed saves. It's not like you need an overwhelming attacks. And that's ignoring the PC going first and failing (or rolling a 1), AOE damage, environmental effects etc. death saves vs is healing worth it is not a straight comparison.




> Do folks in this thread consider Twilight Cleric's bubble to be a healing ability?


I don't consider temp HP or damage reduction as 'healing,' healing is restoring hit points a creature has lost.




> My personal opinion is that Twilight Cleric is way overpowered in comparison to everything else in the game save exploits like Simulacrum and Coffeelock.
> 
> I mostly agree with Dork Forge, and his conception of "floors" and "ceilings." To me, the Twilight Cleric is the ceiling of what a healer can do and I think this ceiling is way too high. The other healers are nicely tuned in my view. I'm fine with the floor being where it is.


The Twilight Cleric is an atrocity of 5E design, including that it's too much Temp HP.

The ceiling for healing is harder to pin down, and for many levels would likely be a multiclassed monster of a character.




> edit - my PCs are level 6 and have a paladin, ranger, alchemist and necromancer. Nobody is a dedicated healer but everyone can contribute something to mitigation and triage over the course of a fight. I have thought a lot about four "off-healers" working together to stabilize a battle that's going badly and at least from a theorycraft perspective, it seems fine. At level 6 they have paladin LOH, ranger's bonus action Healing Spirit (he's a bow ranger so he is only losing Hunter's Mark), the Alchemist's 1d6+8 bonus action Healing Word, and the necromancer who will eventually have Life Transference and can also order a skeleton to administer a healing potion to a fallen ally.
> 
> I have offered them an idiot NPC healer follower on multiple occasions and they have turned it down. The only other thing I am thinking of giving them is an expensive consumable that offers a strong emergency burst heal of some kind, but Life Transference might be good enough. Or I might just give them a scroll with an upcasted version of Life Transference--that might do the trick.


A party with a lot of shallow healing can be a good thing, but how they do as levels increase can really vary. Lots of fun, though.




> edit2 - I love the suggestion of putting an upcasted CLW into a spell-storing item. That would let an Alchemist 1d6+10 bonus action Healing Word next to a 2d8+10 Cure Light Wounds out of a spell storing item using the main action, for 32.5 total healing. It's a really nice way to cast two leveled spells in the same round, both of which get the Alchemist's +5 bonus.


Healing Word is a d4, but that is a good combo. Note that the Alchemist boost, whilst making sense, is technically not RAW for the SSI.




> Combined with 50 points from the Paladin and ~36 from the Necromancer's Life Transference, that's pretty good overall. This party's main defensive weakness is that they don't have a refreshing source of temp HP. Maybe I should offer them a Ghallanda halfling with the Chef feat?


A party doesn't need temp hp, this would only be a 'weakness' IMO if your party was made up of low HP max characters, which doesn't seem to be the case.

----------


## Goobahfish

> Level 1 proactive healing is a bad example, since you can easily drop in a single hit. Heck, a Bugbear could reliably drop most 1st level characters on average damage alone.
> Level 1, and probably level 2, are the worst case for proactive healing and the strongest for pop-up healing just due to the extremely low HP totals.


Acha, this seems to indicate you understand at least some of my argument. However, just brushing it aside as 'at low levels' misses the fact that this conversation only makes sense when characters have low hit points. If the probability of a character surviving a round of combat is 100% (because they have sufficient HP to tank all hits) what on earth is anyone using healing magic for in lieu of any other kind of action? In that case there is only a very limited niche argument for healing.





> I... really struggle to follow your logic here, and I think the issue is maybe conflation of 'attacked' and 'dropped to 0?' Because, if you're getting healed at all you've presumably been attacked (where that use of the word is a synonym for damage) in some way. There is no 'healing' before that happens, because there's nothing to heal.


Ok, so for the purposes of my terminology. Proactive means healing before a damaging incident. Reactive means healing after a damaging incident. I.e., one is trying to prevent 'death' by buffering hit points prior to a damaging attack. The other is accepting the possibility of zero hit points and using the equivalent action used to heal after the damage, using the current action to do something else. Effectively the order (assuming a cleric and fighter) is:
Cleric (heals), Fighter, Monster, Cleric (???)
OR
Cleric (???), Fighter, Monster, Cleric (heals)

Now clearly I am presupposing an Initiative Order here because again, the entire concept of pop-up healing (i.e., reactive healing) is otherwise invalid. If the monster acts before the fighter and he is killed, the utility of reactive healing is completely negated. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

So, in this context, the above example has a Fighter on equal or higher HP using reactive healing. I hope we can agree on this logic.





> And I'd agree with that, but your default seems to be that letting a party member drop to 0 is fine and all you're looking at the HP afterwards. I don't think there's really that much point to comparing that to proactive healing like you are, dropping to 0 in that comparison is showing proactive healing working, not failing.


Unless, the damage you receive exceeds the proactive healing, or by not doing something else a monster gets an extra attack, or... 





> Yeah that's 100% anecdotal, because there are many reasons going down would be bad, and they're not exactly niche technicalities. I get the feeling table style is a huge differentiating factor here.
> For example: In your games are monsters likely to attack a downed creature? Is collateral damage from other sources likely?


In games I have played, creatures attacking downed players is actually quite rare as there is usually other characters which present a far bigger threat than an unconscious foe. Collateral damage from other sources likewise is relatively rare? Obviously these things exist, but they are hardly 'the norm'.

Consider, collateral damage kinds of sounds likes spells, and they tend to be more present early in a combat when HP totals are on average higher. The thing about this whole discussion (where it is relevant) is it is really referring to the pointy end of combats where characters have taken a lot of damage. This leads to the obvious question? Who and why? There are characters in parties designed to take and mitigate damage (frontline) and others who are not (squishies). The need to bolster a squishy indicates a tactical failure in general. If they are taking sufficient damage to drop them, they are likely taking enough to lose concentration anyway? Characters designed to take and mitigate damage usually don't have concentration as drawing a lot of damage usually results in losing concentration. So, the pop-up/top-up damage argument usually relates to characters which take a lot of damage.




> You're then just arbitrarily drawing lines to make that 'bout.,' arguably what you're doing is two bouts.


Arbitrarily? I'm comparing it in the minimal context under which the conversation has any meaning at all. If there aren't two rounds for the healer is there even a comparison going on? All decisions about reactive and proactive healing take place on this scale.




> In your example the characters get bopped twice, the reactive healing sees the character go down. You then just kind of assume nothing bad happens because of that, or whilst they're down and jump to comparing after they survive.
> 
> This approach also ignores PC agency, before the second attack hits that PC might heal on top of the top up, like Second Wind, or the top up combined with a damage reduction might make the difference between staying up or going down.


OR they could use second wind in the turn after the top-up at which point they are still ahead. The math doesn't lie. Meanwhile if you have proactively healed you have delayed an action of some kind to later in the combat (or not at all).





> It's just an incredibly specific way of looking at it that ignores way to many factors and makes too many favourable assumptions.


It is called reductionist analysis. Look at things in their component parts and then draw assessments. I'm not drawing favourable assumptions. I am assuming a minimalist encounter and then illustrating the mathematics. As this minimalist encounter isn't completely unrepresentative, I stand by my analysis. I have already acknowledged things like concentration shift the calculus. But not every character relies on concentration. Not every character with concentration relies on concentration in every combat. Not every character that relies on concentration and uses concentration in a combat has the luxury of having it up after being hit with sufficient damage to reduce them to zero HP. And yes, in most of my D&D games, concentration isn't a 'every combat for every character thing'. In fact the calculus of using concentration is usually diametrically opposed to the calculus of taking damage, so usually those characters take every reasonable step to avoid taking damage through non-healing means.




> Your argument hinges on probability, so of course how common something is matters. 
> 
> Your positive experiences with a PC going down seem to the be backbone of your opinion. I'm assuming that presumably going down has negatively affected a PC in someway in your experience at some point, so it would entirely be frequency you're going off, or you've been absurdly, odd-defyingly lucky and have never experienced it.


Indeed, people have gone down, but the cost has been so minor as to be nearly irrelevant for all the reasons I've stated above. Note the word. NEARLY. There are circumstances where healing proactively makes sense. But that isn't the basic calculus of the game. That is an 'added variable'. It is not a natural assumption that a character reduced to zero had concentration up.




> Unless what put them down was at range, I disagree with this. If a character's go-to is to cast spells, ime they tend to want to get away from whatever just smacked them to 0, and that extra 15ftish absolutely matter. Just like a melee character can end up way short trying to move to their target at half speed (whether they kill what they were fighting, or the thing moves on whilst they're down).
> 
> Monsters tend to have a mobility edge on the average PC, losing half their movement is pretty harsh in a lot of situations.


So are you arguing against yourself here? If monsters have a mobility edge on PCs then how will having an extra 15ft of movement change things? If your movement is lower than the enemies most of the time, having extra movement is meaningless because you have already lost the positioning war. You can't run from an enemy with a higher speed than you meaningfully?

Likewise if a melee character is put down at range? What is this level 1? Otherwise your party is in a lot of trouble in that your melee characters (typified by having high AC and hit point pools) were put down before even reaching the enemy. Was it because you were wasting actions trying to keep them on positive HP rather than attacking the attackers?




> Moreover, my point about uncertainty remains. If a character has... let's say 10 HP remaining. Does it make sense to bolster them? In any normal context, you would probably say yes. They are nearly dead. That could be bad. 
> - The guarantee is that the PC has more HP than before you did it.
> - With a variety of bonus action healing and non-healing bonus actions to take I find the 'waste' thing a weak argument.
> - If the ally goes down anyway then so what? You at least tried and gave them the chance, as long as you didn't throw a tiny amount of healing in a combat where you're likely to take more damage it's worth it. This is the same line of thinking that stops you throwing attacks or using save spells. _The game is built on chance._
> - It speaks volumes that a risk listed here isn't that your ally might just die. Or that you (as the healer in this situation) might go down, which given less targets for team monster, is more likely than the proactive version.
> - Your action could fail to produce anything, with your logic I'm not sure why that wouldn't be a risk
> - You list losing stuff as 'might,' there is no might, if they are concentrating, Raging etc. those things _will_ end. They _will_ lose half their movement. You will be aware of these things when you're making your decision, *it isn't a risk, it is a part of the decision when to heal.*


So clearly, you are running into trouble understanding words like might and the mechanism of the D&D game. Most abilities in the game of D&D require you to roll a dice to determine their outcome. Hence... might? If you proactively heal an ally, the enemies 'might' miss them (actually pretty likely given how the game is designed) and you haven't gained any benefit at all. This is perhaps the most obvious and significant risk. The healing had no effect at all on the combat. The reactive healing strategy gets to capitalize on this and 'do stuff' not only this turn, but potentially next turn too. There are no healing abilities in the game that are 'free'. If you are using a bonus action, this would be wasting a bonus action.




> Entirely contextual, and you seem to be sweeping aside the contexts where it would be better.


Am I though? I think what I am doing is trying to establish a 'norm'. Normally the reactive strategy is superior. Extra things need to be added on to make this not true (like some concentrating twinned-haste sorcerer who is apparently getting wailed upon and isn't trying to take cover or do anything else to avoid falling over and yet, strangely hasn't already lost concentration having been attacked sufficiently to nearly drop them to zero hit points). That is the trivial point I am trying to make and your only 'arguments' seem to be 'not always because more complex scenario and barbarians'. Well duh.

----------


## zlefin

I can't think of a good way to integrate into how DnD works; but one thing some videogame systems use  to prevent the padded sumo problem is  having a healing stacking malus.  So you can have high power healing; it just gets less effective the more its used.  It seems hard to have such a system that works well for DnD; because you'd want the effect to scale based on how much healing was previously done, which tends to get mathier than most people would want.

I've pondered other ways to fix it; and the more I ponder, the more I find that things that worked in videogames simply wouldn't translate well to DnD due to the substantial differences in worldbuilding and rules assumptions.  Even with reworks they simply don't fit well.  For instance, while adding riders to the heals could make them more interesting, it's still the case that as a point of worldbuilding there should exist heal spells with no riders, and their existence places a necessary cap on how good any healing spell can be.   Also, things like cooldowns don't make sense with how DnD spells work.

Hmm, maybe we could do something if the entire concept of how healing works in 5E was reworked; but that's a really big system change.

Have any subsets of the people here come to an agreement on the specific criteria that would be required for a fix?

----------


## KorvinStarmast

After six pages, I remain content that healing in 5e is fit for purpose, and that this discussion has at best been carping at the margins of a successful system implementation.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Acha, this seems to indicate you understand at least some of my argument. However, just brushing it aside as 'at low levels' misses the fact that this conversation only makes sense when characters have low hit points. If the probability of a character surviving a round of combat is 100% (because they have sufficient HP to tank all hits) what on earth is anyone using healing magic for in lieu of any other kind of action? In that case there is only a very limited niche argument for healing.


Let me be very clear, by low levels, I mean level 1 and maybe 2, depending on class and build. That is the briefest part of the game, commonly skipped and recommended to not play.

The point is that proactive healing can only be effective if your potential HP can tolerate being hit. At 1st level, that is a coin toss, so proactive healing isn't appealing for most characters. By 3rd level, proactive healing becomes feasible even for Wizards and Sorcerers.

You seem to be confusing their potential HP (their max) as their current HP in this quote.






> Ok, so for the purposes of my terminology. Proactive means healing before a damaging incident. Reactive means healing after a damaging incident. I.e., one is trying to prevent 'death' by buffering hit points prior to a damaging attack. The other is accepting the possibility of zero hit points and using the equivalent action used to heal after the damage, using the current action to do something else. Effectively the order (assuming a cleric and fighter) is:
> Cleric (heals), Fighter, Monster, Cleric (???)
> OR
> Cleric (???), Fighter, Monster, Cleric (heals)
> 
> Now clearly I am presupposing an Initiative Order here because again, the entire concept of pop-up healing (i.e., reactive healing) is otherwise invalid. If the monster acts before the fighter and he is killed, the utility of reactive healing is completely negated. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.
> 
> So, in this context, the above example has a Fighter on equal or higher HP using reactive healing. I hope we can agree on this logic.


I think your argument would be strengthened by more obvious conceit that pop-up healing is entirely dependent on initiative. You wrote off entire class mechanics and common play states (concentration) as 'exceptions' when, really it should be that being in a position where pop-up healing is possible/a good idea should be the exception, due to how much has to line up.

And I still disagree with your conclusion, because you're just arbitrarily drawn a boundary to declare pop-up better. Seriously, it isn't even an entire round or a sensical stopping point.

You could just as easily end the 'bout' after the monster goes (in your example initiative) where top-up healing has the Fighter still up and reactive has left them at 0HP and extremely vulnerable.

Note: Even your own example has nuance that pop up can take advantage of: Combining healing with Second Wind, substantially increasing the Fighter's current HP. Dramatically increasing the likelihood that they stay up to begin with.




> Unless, the damage you receive exceeds the proactive healing, or by not doing something else a monster gets an extra attack, or...


It doesn't matter if damage exceeds proactive healing, it has to exceed the amount healed+their current HP. 

And, again, the notion that because you're healing means you're not doing anything else *has never been true*. Even in a PHB only game, there are options to still contribute damage and other things.

Repeatedly claiming that healing is the only thing you'd do for proactive healing is beating a defenseless strawman.




> In games I have played, creatures attacking downed players is actually quite rare as there is usually other characters which present a far bigger threat than an unconscious foe. Collateral damage from other sources likewise is relatively rare? Obviously these things exist, but they are hardly 'the norm'.


Then that is 100% your table shaping things, it sounds like the DM doesn't really consider how the monsters would act (killing to eat, finishing a PC off because... healing magic obviously exists).




> Consider, collateral damage kinds of sounds likes spells, and they tend to be more present early in a combat when HP totals are on average higher. The thing about this whole discussion (where it is relevant) is it is really referring to the pointy end of combats where characters have taken a lot of damage. This leads to the obvious question? Who and why? There are characters in parties designed to take and mitigate damage (frontline) and others who are not (squishies). The need to bolster a squishy indicates a tactical failure in general. If they are taking sufficient damage to drop them, they are likely taking enough to lose concentration anyway? Characters designed to take and mitigate damage usually don't have concentration as drawing a lot of damage usually results in losing concentration. So, the pop-up/top-up damage argument usually relates to characters which take a lot of damage.


Let me clear something up that you are presenting here: The notion that a non-frontline character will never be significantly damaged, or that if they are then something has tactically gone wrong, is not how the game works (or at least, should work). If your table allows damage to be contained at the frontline and have 'squishy' characters hang out safely at the back, then I'll be honest, that sounds like a boring, unchallenging game.

That said, yes spells can be a source of collateral damage, I have no idea why you'd consider that only early rounds unless you're only thinking about PCs hurting each other. Then there are monster AOEs, you know what the game is ripe with? _Monsters with breath weapons._ Seriously, off the top of my head:

- Various ages of dragon

- Dragon-themed monsters

- Hell hounds

- Winter wolves

- Behirs

- Frost Salamanders

And what do those abilities tend to be? High damage and rechargeable. Meaning that you can nail multiple PCs, possible the entire party, and put everyone in a dangerous position, and then have that same devastating attack pop up at any point in the combat.

The second thing I just inherently disagree with is this:

_ "If they are taking sufficient damage to drop them, they are likely taking enough to lose concentration anyway?"_

This just isn't true, maintaining concentration can be extremely easy given how the DC is calculated, and this assumes going down to spike damage, instead of getting chipped away at. It also, to be frank, feels like you trying to dismiss losing concentration as a hazard of pop-up healing.




> Arbitrarily? I'm comparing it in the minimal context under which the conversation has any meaning at all. If there aren't two rounds for the healer is there even a comparison going on? All decisions about reactive and proactive healing take place on this scale.


You aren't doing things in rounds, you artificially created 'bouts,' which is entirely arbitrary because it's something you just made up for the conversation, rather than an actual game construct.




> OR they could use second wind in the turn after the top-up at which point they are still ahead. The math doesn't lie. Meanwhile if you have proactively healed you have delayed an action of some kind to later in the combat (or not at all).


Again, healing is not the only thing you have to do in a round.

current HP+healing+Second Wind > 0+healing+Second Wind.

You're claiming that it's math, but that math is rooted in your problematic idea of 'bouts' and drawing comparison points. Top-up healing will always result in greater current HP at the time of healing than pop-up, that's the nature of it. The point of proactive is to prevent the PC going down and all of the negatives associated with that, which you just completely ignore.

If you ignore the downsides of going down, then there's little point talking about healing at all.




> It is called reductionist analysis. Look at things in their component parts and then draw assessments. I'm not drawing favourable assumptions. I am assuming a minimalist encounter and then illustrating the mathematics. As this minimalist encounter isn't completely unrepresentative, I stand by my analysis. I have already acknowledged things like concentration shift the calculus. But not every character relies on concentration. Not every character with concentration relies on concentration in every combat. Not every character that relies on concentration and uses concentration in a combat has the luxury of having it up after being hit with sufficient damage to reduce them to zero HP. And yes, in most of my D&D games, concentration isn't a 'every combat for every character thing'. In fact the calculus of using concentration is usually diametrically opposed to the calculus of taking damage, so usually those characters take every reasonable step to avoid taking damage through non-healing means.


I don't think it's controversial to suggest that looking at things in isolation is missing the big picture. You keep trying to isolate things, but that just comes across as sweeping everything aside. If you didn't actually reduce things, then pop-up healing becomes an exception itself, because for it to actually work you need a very narrow set of circumstances.

And you don't have to have concentration in every encounter, but generally speaking, encounters difficult enough to drop PCs are more likely to warrant concentration effects.





> Indeed, people have gone down, but the cost has been so minor as to be nearly irrelevant for all the reasons I've stated above. Note the word. NEARLY. There are circumstances where healing proactively makes sense. But that isn't the basic calculus of the game. That is an 'added variable'. It is not a natural assumption that a character reduced to zero had concentration up.


The basic calculus of the game? The only thing I can think that means is that there is no scaled efficiency of a character, effective at 1 HP as a 100 HP etc. Which is a point that completely ignores the downsides of going down.... Which is the 'calculus of the game.'




> So are you arguing against yourself here? If monsters have a mobility edge on PCs then how will having an extra 15ft of movement change things? If your movement is lower than the enemies most of the time, having extra movement is meaningless because you have already lost the positioning war. You can't run from an enemy with a higher speed than you meaningfully?


- It isn't 15ft, it's half your speed. So even PCs that have invested in superior speed get dropped down to being outran.

- Most games don't resemble a foot race on a 100m track. You don't need to perpetually outrun the monsters, but half your speed can be the difference between getting behind your allies or not.




> Likewise if a melee character is put down at range? What is this level 1? Otherwise your party is in a lot of trouble in that your melee characters (typified by having high AC and hit point pools) were put down before even reaching the enemy. Was it because you were wasting actions trying to keep them on positive HP rather than attacking the attackers?


At what point did I say 'melee character one-shotted at range?' It feels like you just assumed a random crossbow bolt did the job, instead of already being damaged. But I'd also like to point out that a lot of very powerful effects, like breath weapons and spells, are ranged.




> So clearly, you are running into trouble understanding words like might and the mechanism of the D&D game. Most abilities in the game of D&D require you to roll a dice to determine their outcome. Hence... might? If you proactively heal an ally, the enemies 'might' miss them (actually pretty likely given how the game is designed) and you haven't gained any benefit at all. This is perhaps the most obvious and significant risk. The healing had no effect at all on the combat. The reactive healing strategy gets to capitalize on this and 'do stuff' not only this turn, but potentially next turn too. There are no healing abilities in the game that are 'free'. If you are using a bonus action, this would be wasting a bonus action.


I understand the game and word might just fine, thanks.

- Bonus actions don't just exist, things give you bonus actions. Just because you can heal as a bonus action, does not mean that you have anything to do otherwise, or that you wanted/it was applicable to do that bonus action.

- You're far more likely to get hit when you're prone. What makes that more likely? A reactive healing strategy.

And if you heal an ally and they don't need those hit points in that combat? So what? Worst case scenario you've saved them a Hit Die or two. The high notion of 'waste' you seem to be clinging to would be devastatingly detrimental if you applied it to the game at large.





> Am I though? I think what I am doing is trying to establish a 'norm'. Normally the reactive strategy is superior. Extra things need to be added on to make this not true (like some concentrating twinned-haste sorcerer who is apparently getting wailed upon and isn't trying to take cover or do anything else to avoid falling over and yet, strangely hasn't already lost concentration having been attacked sufficiently to nearly drop them to zero hit points). That is the trivial point I am trying to make and your only 'arguments' seem to be 'not always because more complex scenario and barbarians'. Well duh.


You have already admitted that reactive healing is only relevant if the initiative order allows for it.

So, how can you possibly call something a 'norm' when it is entirely dependent on a random order favouring it?

And whilst you've deliberately chosen what you deem to be an unlikely case, you also ignore things like Rage and all the downsides of going down. And your stance on concentration and damage really just sounds like you don't have a grasp on how easy it is to maintain concentration and/or you assume that damage must inherently be avoidable and come in massive numbers.

You haven't established any 'norms' by dismissing large swaths of the game, just created a hyperfocused whiteroom, where the criteria for your math is set by you, not the game.

----------


## Kane0

Check out the new UA's Prayer of Healing.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Check out the new UA's Prayer of Healing.


You mean the lovechild of Prayer of Healing and Cat Nap?

No idea how impactful it'd actually be, but that feels like straight creep. They literally crammed two spells into one.

----------


## Kane0

I like it, because it basically rips off my 'healing spells let you spend Hit Dice' idea. But it probably shouldn't also let you get pact magic, channel divinity, maneuver dice, etc back as well. It is Prayer of Healing after all, not Prayer of Resting.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I like it, because it basically rips off my 'healing spells let you spend Hit Dice' idea. But it probably shouldn't also let you get pact magic, channel divinity, maneuver dice, etc back as well. It is Prayer of Healing after all, not Prayer of Resting.


Letting you spend some HD along with a boost would be good, as the put it in the UA it just seems too much. I think they also removed the risk of Cat Nap, I don't think you need to be unconscious. So, I guess you could have a supercharged short rest whilst walking around?

----------


## Goobahfish

I really don't want to go point-by-point as this is getting tedious.

The reason 'the bout' is a sensible measure (and I don't consider this a technical term) is that the question of proactive vs reactive healing really requires the healer to have two action rounds, one prior to and one post the healee (yeah, healee). Anything beyond that is a different decision point (and has so many variables as to be complex to analyze meaningfully). Do I heal before this character acts, or do I heal after.

If the initiative order doesn't line up, reactive healing is completely useless, hence it was excluded, something I should have (in retrospect) stated up front.

What I am trying to point out, is that were you to design a decision tree, things like concentration would be part of that decision tree, but they wouldn't be the root node of that tree. It would be... "use reactive unless conditions X, Y, Z". Obviously if you have a twin-hasted sorcerer, healing them is probably a sensible strategy. Of course, if you could use your action to kill a monster instead, it might be worth the risk to let the sorcerer take fire instead (it is all contextual). I'm not even touching this as an argument point.

The crux of my argument, is that letting character fall to zero 'temporarily' rearing its head as an optimal strategy which isn't narratively 'leave him, stay on target' but rather an effect of game rules puts a bad taste in my mouth. Instead I am getting bogged down in meaningless exceptions. Yes, this isn't always true (again obviously). It is 'baseline true'. That is, unless there are extra things going on, it is true. In the most neutral of cases. One healer with one healing spell, one fighter with no abilities, one goblin. It is true. For it to be untrue requires other things to be going on. Lots of goblins potentially causing death saves, critical hits causing multiple death saves, the fighter has some 'conscious-dependent-effect in play'.

Your argument seems to be... these effects are in total so common, that the default case is the aggregate of exceptions. Which is true... kind of, but not useful. It obscures the main point. 

The penalty for dropping to zero in D&D seems... paltry. It is entirely possible there is a scenario where a fighter with a greatsword is dropped, is healing worded and his turn is entirely identical to what it would have been if hadn't been rendered unconscious. That is narratively and mechanically awful. Having an abundance of concentration effects which change that calculus does nothing to address the underlying baseline ruleset which incentivizes 'temporary sacrifices' numerically.

One of the things that has come out of the 5.1 new rules it the Dazed condition which would basically solve this problem entirely. After being healed from zero, you are dazed. Now you can stand up, or act but not both. Tada.

---

Honestly, D&D would probably be better overall if there was some rule akin to:
Whenever you are healed, you have to spend a hit dice for it to have an effect and then rebalance the game around that basic principle. That way there isn't such thing as an infinite damage sponge (other than level 20 Moon Druids). It would also incentivise big 'powerful' healing over tiny clutch healing. You could still buff people up with temporary hit points etc (which would become more useful generally) but at some point, those wounds aren't going to 'magically go away'.

----------


## Pex

> Honestly, D&D would probably be better overall if there was some rule akin to:
> Whenever you are healed, you have to spend a hit dice for it to have an effect and then rebalance the game around that basic principle. That way there isn't such thing as an infinite damage sponge (other than level 20 Moon Druids). It would also incentivise big 'powerful' healing over tiny clutch healing. You could still buff people up with temporary hit points etc (which would become more useful generally) but at some point, those wounds aren't going to 'magically go away'.


4E did that. Didn't like it then. Wouldn't like it now. It's diminishing returns leading to a death spiral. Reactive or proactive, healing in combat is meant to keep you alive and do stuff. 5E healing does that.

----------


## stoutstien

I haven't read this entire form because I have a pretty good idea of what direction it went but I do have a slight tangent about healing, or more accurately an under utilize portion of it.

There's a few instances in the game where there's features or conditions that effect targets unless they are targeted with one of the cleansing spells, such as remove curse, OR they received a noticeable chunk of healing. The elder brain dragon for example has a particularly nasty breath attack to this extent.
This is definitely an area where there's plenty of room to play with to make healing a effective portion of the game without necessarily reinforcing the race to zero.

----------


## animorte

> without necessarily reinforcing the race to zero.


This right here is the key point. Theres SO much more to the game than it being an HP race.

There was a thread about this a bit ago.

----------


## Yakk

4e attempted to solve this with (daily) healing surges (attribute of the target), and cheap per-encounter abilities and expensive daily heals.

Most of your daily healing would come from your own internal healing surges.  Healers would let you activate them in combat (with a boost), and would have a handful of them in every encounter.  They would have to choose *who* they would heal with these.

There was also expensive daily heals, sometimes bypassing healing surges, which you could pull out in an emergency.

So you could outpace a foe's damage output with heals, but only on *one* of your allies, and you'd run out of steam (in an encounter) fast.  Enemies where expected to be multiple and be spreading damage around (the controller/defender's job was to reduce focus fire).

Then, at the end of the encounter, wounded people would consume healing surges (instead of your healing magic) to top off.

Dipping into daily healing resources (on the healer) in an encounter might double the length of time you could keep someone up against damage, but no further.

----------


## Reach Weapon

If the goal is simply to discourage pop-up healing, a DM could simply rule that a flawed victory, and drop the XP award, possibly one player per pop's worth ( [number of combat heals at 0] / [party size] ).

If that puts the party negative for the fight, charge it against the day, and so on.

----------


## Witty Username

I think the simplest discouragement tactic for pop-up healing is to eliminate death saves, and have PCs simply die at 0. It does also significantly change player decision making so that is something to keep in mind.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> I think the simplest discouragement tactic for pop-up healing is to eliminate death saves, and have PCs simply die at 0. It does also significantly change player decision making so that is something to keep in mind.


It also drastically increases the chance of random, unavoidable death. Which, frankly, sucks in any game that's anything like heroic or combat heavy.

At level 1, any hit from almost anything will outright kill you. And two will absolutely do so. A dragon's breath will likely kill you even into later levels unless you have a source of resistance.

And martials (especially melee ones) have it even worse. Do you want to encourage ranged only parties and Dex focused characters even more?

----------


## animorte

> And martials (especially melee ones) have it even worse. Do you want to encourage ranged only parties and Dex focused characters even more?


Sounds good to me!  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Pex

> If the goal is simply to discourage pop-up healing, a DM could simply rule that a flawed victory, and drop the XP award, possibly one player per pop's worth ( [number of combat heals at 0] / [party size] ).
> 
> If that puts the party negative for the fight, charge it against the day, and so on.


In a word, no.

In more than one word, it is not the DM's job to punish players (dock XP) for not playing the game the way he wants them to play.

----------


## stoutstien

> In a word, no.
> 
> In more than one word, it is not the DM's job to punish players (dock XP) for not playing the game the way he wants them to play.


Yea. I could see this ending badly. I'm all for rewarding extra exp for certain thresholds but reduction should be an almost never type factor. Maybe if you reward exp for bypassing a challenge and then they circle back and address it a reduction is called for. Just getting knocked out? No.

----------


## sithlordnergal

May I make a crazy suggestion? Leave healing be. Its currently turned in such a way that prevents death spirals, and prevents healing from being too powerful. Yes, pop-up healing exists. But any detriments you add to it simply create a death spiral, outside of the lower exp idea with is a poor idea.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> May I make a crazy suggestion? Leave healing be. Its currently turned in such a way that prevents death spirals, and prevents healing from being too powerful. Yes, pop-up healing exists. But any detriments you add to it simply create a death spiral, outside of the lower exp idea with is a poor idea.


Do I agree with @sithlordnergal on something? <checks outside>No, no flying porcines and, while it's a bit chilly down in the infernal realms, it's by no means _cold_</> Odd... :Small Tongue:

----------


## Pex

> Do I agree with @sithlordnergal on something? <checks outside>No, no flying porcines and, while it's a bit chilly down in the infernal realms, it's by no means _cold_</> Odd...


We've survived apocalypses before when we agree.

----------


## Witty Username

> May I make a crazy suggestion? Leave healing be. Its currently turned in such a way that prevents death spirals, and prevents healing from being too powerful. Yes, pop-up healing exists. But any detriments you add to it simply create a death spiral, outside of the lower exp idea with is a poor idea.


Is a highly underrated solution that has proven effective at many tables.👌

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> We've survived apocalypses before when we agree.


Blue because we're all dead now?  :Small Wink:

----------


## animorte

Hey, you folks better be careful with all this agreement nonsense up in here!

----------


## jas61292

Personally, I've gone back and forth on whether I would want to change healing, going to zero, and all that other stuff. And while I have not come to a conclusion I am satisfied with, I do what to say that I really do not get all the issues people have with things leading to so called "death spirals."

Like... yes, if you give exhaustion or any other penalty (bar something meta like experience) for dropping to zero, that does mean that it makes it more likely that you will drop to zero again and again afterwards. But... that's kinda the point. Its the very reason you are implementing a mechanic like that. They very reason you punish dropping to zero is to disincentivize a playstyle of letting people drop to zero without a care. If you don't like pop up healing and want to change that, you neuter pop up healing itself (ie nerf healing word), or you punish dropping to zero itself. And if you are punishing dropping to zero, you are doing so by making it a bad thing. And bad things in combat lead to death.

Simply put, a punishment in combat that doesn't lead to a death spiral is either meta or its toothless. And a toothless change is not going to do anything about pop up healing. 

Now, obviously you can agree or disagree as to whether pop up healing is bad in the first place. And if you do think it is bad and want to make a mechanic to discourage it, you can debate just how punishing it will be. But whatever the mechanic is, it will have to be something that makes you more likely to drop again, or, that is to say, it has to lead to a death spiral. That is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The question is how fast you want it to spiral, not whether you spiral or not.


EDIT: I did realize there is one other way to punish without spiraling, and that would be to make hitting zero itself more risky. Changing around death saves, for instance such that dropping to zero itself is far more likely to end in death. This discourages pop up by making people scared to drop to zero in the first place, but without making it subsequently more deadly each time you go down. That said, I don't think most people want to go for something that makes quick death more likely, especially as that usually makes things more susceptible to bad luck.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> Do I agree with @sithlordnergal on something? <checks outside>No, no flying porcines and, while it's a bit chilly down in the infernal realms, it's by no means _cold_</> Odd...


o-o The world is ending. Everyone make peace with yourselves now. XD






> Personally, I've gone back and forth on whether I would want to change healing, going to zero, and all that other stuff. And while I have not come to a conclusion I am satisfied with, I do what to say that I really do not get all the issues people have with things leading to so called "death spirals."
> 
> Like... yes, if you give exhaustion or any other penalty (bar something meta like experience) for dropping to zero, that does mean that it makes it more likely that you will drop to zero again and again afterwards. But... that's kinda the point. Its the very reason you are implementing a mechanic like that. They very reason you punish dropping to zero is to disincentivize a playstyle of letting people drop to zero without a care. If you don't like pop up healing and want to change that, you neuter pop up healing itself (ie nerf healing word), or you punish dropping to zero itself. And if you are punishing dropping to zero, you are doing so by making it a bad thing. And bad things in combat lead to death.
> 
> Simply put, a punishment in combat that doesn't lead to a death spiral is either meta or its toothless. And a toothless change is not going to do anything about pop up healing. 
> 
> Now, obviously you can agree or disagree as to whether pop up healing is bad in the first place. And if you do think it is bad and want to make a mechanic to discourage it, you can debate just how punishing it will be. But whatever the mechanic is, it will have to be something that makes you more likely to drop again, or, that is to say, it has to lead to a death spiral. That is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The question is how fast you want it to spiral, not whether you spiral or not.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I did realize there is one other way to punish without spiraling, and that would be to make hitting zero itself more risky. Changing around death saves, for instance such that dropping to zero itself is far more likely to end in death. This discourages pop up by making people scared to drop to zero in the first place, but without making it subsequently more deadly each time you go down. That said, I don't think most people want to go for something that makes quick death more likely, especially as that usually makes things more susceptible to bad luck.


So, the problem with this is that standard healing is not strong enough to keep people above 0 in fights that are actually difficult/dangerous. The only exceptions to this are Heal and Mass Heal. Looking over we have:

Cure Wounds: heals 1d8+Spell Mod, average 5+spell Mod

Healing Word: heals 1d4+Spell Mod, average 3+spell mod

Mass Healing Word: 1d4+Spell Mod to 6 people, average 3+spell mod

Mass Cure Wounds: 3d8+Spell Mod to 6 people, average 14+spell mod


That's...not a lot of healing. In fact, looking at CR 1/8th monsters, they tend to deal 4 to 5 points of damage, which is one point more than what Healing Word heals you on average with a +0, and equal to or one point less than Cure Wounds would heal you on average with a +0. Now, that seems fine at first...but you usually fight more than Giant Rat or Bandit at a time. Usually you're fighting 3 to 4, which means as a group the NPCs are dealing more damage than a player can heal. And while most CR 1/8ths only have a +3 to hit, that dynamic doesn't change. 

Mass Cure Wounds is a 5th level spell, so level 9 to cast it at the earliest, you could upcast Cure Wounds to heal an average of 23+spell mod. Average damage of a CR 9 creature is between 30 to 40 points of damage. And those CR 9's have far higher hit chances. And before you say "A CR 9 creature shouldn't take on a party of level 9's", that's just a Medium Encounter. By level 9, enemies are dealing nearly double what your average player can cure using the best available healing spells.

Now, there are ways to improve that healing. But you need to dedicate your subclass and potentially your Concentration to do so. Outside of that, you'll end up with one of three situations. Either:

A) Healing is too weak to keep up with NPC damage and you end up with rocket tag, which I suspect the DMs that dislike pop-up healing don't like/want

B) Healing is too weak, and the moment the DM throws a Hard or Deadly encounter the party ends up in a death spiral

or

C) DM buffs standard healing to the point where it can keep up with NPC damage, making every encounter essentially a stall fight and unintentionally super charging things like the Life Cleric to the point where they could actually break the game

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> May I make a crazy suggestion? Leave healing be.


 Yep, as I opined a few pages back, healing in 5e is fit for purpose.  :Small Smile:

----------


## Captain Cap

Personally, I think the "pop-up healing" problem stems more from how HP work than healing itself: it's just weird and kind of ridiculous that you go directly from "functioning at the best of your capacities" to "unconscious" in merely 1 HP. 
And of course healing PCs who are still standing isn't going to be particularly effective, they are at most suffering the equivalent of a scratch!

I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to introduce an intermediate "debilitated" state to roughly have

_unsconscious_ ----> _debilitated_
_dead_ aaaaaa ----> _unconscious_
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa _dead_

This way, healing a still conscious PC may have a meaningful impact by removing serious debuffs, and a few restored HP wouldn't be enough to bring an unconscious PC back to their peak performance.

----------


## Yakk

> Personally, I think the "pop-up healing" problem stems more from how HP work than healing itself: it's just weird and kind of ridiculous that you go directly from "functioning at the best of your capacities" to "unconscious" in merely 1 HP. 
> And of course healing PCs who are still standing isn't going to be particularly effective, they are at most suffering the equivalent of a scratch!
> 
> I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to introduce an intermediate "debilitated" state to roughly have
> 
> _unsconscious_ ----> _debilitated_
> _dead_ aaaaaa ----> _unconscious_
> aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa _dead_
> 
> This way, healing a still conscious PC may have a meaningful impact by removing serious debuffs, and a few restored HP wouldn't be enough to bring an unconscious PC back to their peak performance.


Except, of course, HP has worked that way in many versions of D&D.

And pop-up healing being much more efficient is pretty new to 5e D&D.

That sort of ...  proves your theory wrong?

----------


## Captain Cap

> Except, of course, HP has worked that way in many versions of D&D.


In the previous editions the unconscious state wasn't a damage sponge, and technically, there was a "disabled" state, although just at 0 hp.




> And pop-up healing being much more efficient is pretty new to 5e D&D.


That's because it's now more common to have an unconscious PC that's not straight up dead, and because an unconscious character now "pops up" automatically when healed, while previously it wasn't necessarily the case.

----------


## Segev

I think hp work a lot better, conceptually, if you think of them as "near miss points" or "grazed points." As long as you still have 1 hp, you haven't taken any wounds more serious than a bleeding bruise or another flesh wound. Cuts _might_ need stitches, but aren't going to be super-debilitating in battle. When you take that last hp and go to zero, that's when your luck ran out or your skill finally failed you, and you zigged when you should've zagged, taking that debilitating hit. The sword through the gut, the blow to the head, etc. And you're out.

Healing magic can be truly miraculous, pulling your guts back together and unrattling your cage. But a lot of the healing when you're not at 0 hp "looks" unimpressive, because most of it is fixing your energy levels and the little injuries that slow you down and would've otherwise made you unable to defend yourself.

----------


## Goobahfish

Usually with issues like this, instead of looking for fixes, I spend time trying to work out what I want and then find the mechanics that fit those requirements.

What I want boils down to:
#1: I want players to not regularly die
#2: If players are going to die, I want that to be immediately obvious. If there are deaths, I want there to be a big sign saying: death incoming. Players can choose to suicide, but there is nothing worse that death being seven turns off and inevitable or sudden and arbitrary.
#3: I want players to fear death and hence fear threats that can lead to death.

I think if I stopped here, 5e would be mostly fine. Pop-up healing allows players to not regularly die. Being near zero HP is a sign saying "death is near or far". #3 is somewhat contradictory to #1 but in general, players knowing the existence of HP pools do get worried when they get low.

Except I want more.

#4: I want players to fear injuries and hence fear threats. Murder-hobo shouldn't be the default strategy. Not fighting should in general be superior to fighting.
#5: I want difficult combats to have lasting consequences. I dislike "I nearly died," => "I am completely unharmed" to be able to occur in a tiny time-frame.
#6: I want death by attrition.

This all goes into to my formulation of two separate pools of health (healable and unhealable).

---

Actually, a really simple work-around for 5e. Like... really simple. Each time you are reduced to zero, your max HP is reduced by the 'left-over' damage. Can only be restored with Long-Rest at some rate. This would seriously discourage hanging around zero, but would still allow you to get up, but have a longer-lasting penalty which would make you feel weak.

The best part is that while it is a death-spiral of sorts, it isn't a 'competence' death-spiral like exhaustion where you just become unable to do anything useful. Instead, you just end up more and more fragile over time, which players will definitely 'feel' even if it doesn't have a huge effect on the game.

----------


## Easy e

0 HP is not dead, it is simply unconscious and possibly dead.  

Therefore, Pop-up healing is basically administering First Aid to someone, only better.    

It is not an issue at all. 



However, I have played 0 = dead before and at early levels it can lead to hilarity (or frustration depending on the tone of the game).  Having a character killed by being head butt by a goat, hit with a rolling pin, falling off a stool, or scratched by a cat can be funny.

----------


## Segev

> Having a character killed by being ... scratched by a cat can be funny.


And, once again, Mittens, Slayer of Wizards and Commoners, stalks the land.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> And, once again, Mittens, Slayer of Wizards and Commoners, stalks the land.


I need that as both a T-Shirt and a Tabaxi hitman.

----------


## Frogreaver

> o-o The world is ending. Everyone make peace with yourselves now. XD
> 
> So, the problem with this is that standard healing is not strong enough to keep people above 0 in fights that are actually difficult/dangerous. The only exceptions to this are Heal and Mass Heal. Looking over we have:
> 
> Cure Wounds: heals 1d8+Spell Mod, average 5+spell Mod
> 
> Healing Word: heals 1d4+Spell Mod, average 3+spell mod
> 
> Mass Healing Word: 1d4+Spell Mod to 6 people, average 3+spell mod
> ...


I don't agree, so let's examine.




> That's...not a lot of healing. In fact, looking at CR 1/8th monsters, they tend to deal 4 to 5 points of damage, which is one point more than what Healing Word heals you on average with a +0, and equal to or one point less than Cure Wounds would heal you on average with a +0. Now, that seems fine at first...but you usually fight more than Giant Rat or Bandit at a time. Usually you're fighting 3 to 4, which means as a group the NPCs are dealing more damage than a player can heal. And while most CR 1/8ths only have a +3 to hit, that dynamic doesn't change.


No wonder we don't agree, you are looking at healing word and cure wounds with 0 mod.  How is anyone supposed to legitimately respond to that?

If you actually looked at the DPR of those rats against a moderately armored PC, say 15ish then you'd find that each enemy only does about ~2 DPR.  Then if you looked at healing word you'd find it heals for ~5.5 HPR.  Cure wounds ~7.5.  

A healing word or cure wounds on an injured PC can easily let them live through on average 3-4 more attacks than they otherwise would have.  The impact is much more significant than you give credit for.  




> Mass Cure Wounds is a 5th level spell, so level 9 to cast it at the earliest, you could upcast Cure Wounds to heal an average of 23+spell mod. Average damage of a CR 9 creature is between 30 to 40 points of damage. And those CR 9's have far higher hit chances. And before you say "A CR 9 creature shouldn't take on a party of level 9's", that's just a Medium Encounter. By level 9, enemies are dealing nearly double what your average player can cure using the best available healing spells.


A bone devil is a CR 9 creature.  It has a 60% chance to hit with it's attacks and if all hit will do about 46 damage.  That's about 28 DPR.  Do you know how much HPR a level 5 cure wounds heals?  about 27.5 (maybe 26.5 if you didn't boost caster stat).  Essentially one cleric turn is enough to negate (on average) at least one turn of CR=Level creature.  And that's not counting if you have something like a life cleric that boosts healing spells and has a channel divinity that can heal alot more.

I guess the question is how many monster turns of cr=level do you expect 1 max level slot heal spell to negate?  What's reasonable there?  How many would it take to make healing 'good'?

----------


## Petelo4f

Healing is fine and popcorn healing is fine.

Look, if you want to make death a scarier prospect, just roll the death saving throws yourself behind the screen or otherwise hidden, so the party doesn't know how close their ally is to death.  I would recommend having a separate dice tray and death save d20s for this so that if the worst happens you can have those d20s able to be seen by the party afterwards.

But as it is, I honestly think healing in 5e is one of the things it got very right, the best healing is used after battle and the in battle heals are designed to keep you in the fight rather than being annoying stall mechanics.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> Personally, I've gone back and forth on whether I would want to change healing, going to zero, and all that other stuff. And while I have not come to a conclusion I am satisfied with, I do what to say that I really do not get all the issues people have with things leading to so called "death spirals."
> 
> Like... yes, if you give exhaustion or any other penalty (bar something meta like experience) for dropping to zero, that does mean that it makes it more likely that you will drop to zero again and again afterwards. But... that's kinda the point. Its the very reason you are implementing a mechanic like that. They very reason you punish dropping to zero is to disincentivize a playstyle of letting people drop to zero without a care. If you don't like pop up healing and want to change that, you neuter pop up healing itself (ie nerf healing word), or you punish dropping to zero itself. And if you are punishing dropping to zero, you are doing so by making it a bad thing. And bad things in combat lead to death.
> 
> Simply put, a punishment in combat that doesn't lead to a death spiral is either meta or its toothless. And a toothless change is not going to do anything about pop up healing. 
> 
> Now, obviously you can agree or disagree as to whether pop up healing is bad in the first place. And if you do think it is bad and want to make a mechanic to discourage it, you can debate just how punishing it will be. But whatever the mechanic is, it will have to be something that makes you more likely to drop again, or, that is to say, it has to lead to a death spiral. That is a good thing. Not a bad thing. The question is how fast you want it to spiral, not whether you spiral or not.
> 
> 
> EDIT: I did realize there is one other way to punish without spiraling, and that would be to make hitting zero itself more risky. Changing around death saves, for instance such that dropping to zero itself is far more likely to end in death. This discourages pop up by making people scared to drop to zero in the first place, but without making it subsequently more deadly each time you go down. That said, I don't think most people want to go for something that makes quick death more likely, especially as that usually makes things more susceptible to bad luck.


Your point about disincentivizing pop-up is a good one.  The point of any mechanic that does that isn't so that a whole bunch of characters end up in some sort of spiral; the point is that somebody does something about a character with low hp before it gets to that stage.  There have been some very compelling arguments on this thread that in fact healing (besides pop-up) doesn't suck; in fact if you build around it, it's quite good.
I'm not sure I'd want to compel one character at a table to feel they need to build around in combat healing, but if pop-up is that jarring to a table or a DM then it's reasonable to disencentivize it in some way beyond what already exists.

----------


## Segev

> Your point about disincentivizing pop-up is a good one.  The point of any mechanic that does that isn't so that a whole bunch of characters end up in some sort of spiral; the point is that somebody does something about a character with low hp before it gets to that stage.  There have been some very compelling arguments on this thread that in fact healing (besides pop-up) doesn't suck; in fact if you build around it, it's quite good.
> I'm not sure I'd want to compel one character at a table to feel they need to build around in combat healing, but if pop-up is that jarring to a table or a DM then it's reasonable to disencentivize it in some way beyond what already exists.


One question to answer, I think, if one wishes to disincentivize pop-up healing, is why they dislike it. This isn't a rhetorical question, trying to claim there's no reason not to like it, but rather a question trying to get to the heart of what is disliked about it, so that that can be addressed.

For example, if it's strictly a verisimilitude problem where healing magic being used primarily on downed targets who then get back up, right as rain and able to fight at 100% until they take another hit, then one way to do it would actually be to allow PCs and other creatures that get to make death saves (rather than dying at 0 hp) to keep acting normally at 0 hp. Increase the number of death saves to 5, and allow creatures to keep fighting until they've failed 2 or 3 death saves (calibrate as you like). Now, the "buffer" of 0 hp is still there, and you want to hit them with healing magic ASAP to keep them from auto-failing death saves with the next few hits. The increased number of death saves is to compensate for the fact that any excuse to not hit the 0 hp target is now gone; if your table already does its best to pound downed PCs to death, you may not need this.

Now, this may or may not address what the real objection to pop-up healing is, depending on what that objection is! But it addresses the verisimilitude problem of waiting for the PC to drop before trying to heal him (how uncompassionate!) and of the PCs bouncing up and down like stand-up men on a toddler's high chair tray.

Now, to me, there is no verisimilitude problem, and it even is genre-appropriate, that PCs will go down and then be healed back to standing and keep going on heroic resolve. That's honestly how a lot of fights in the big shonen anime tend to go: the hero gets beaten up but keeps fighting until he goes down, and then a friend does something to bolster him back to his feet, where he keeps fighting. In anime that have overtaken the manga, or some manga, this may repeat 2-3 times for a very dramatic/prolonged fight. But, just because I don't have a problem with it doesn't mean others don't.

If there is another reason people dislike it and want to discourage pop-up healing, then knowing why they want to discourage it will help design rules that discourage it in a way that encourages desired behavior. Is it really just, "I want you healing before they get to 0 hp?" If so, why? Why is that specific behavior so much more desirable? Think about it carefully; it is easy to confuse a behavior you want because it leads to something you actually want with being the thing you genuinely want. For example, you might think you want to ban eating snacks at the table because one player is loud and messy with his crunchy chips, and it makes a mess and makes it hard for you to hear the DM. In reality, all you really want is that player not to eat those chips and make that mess, and that could be accomplished by either banning that particular snack or asking that particular player to avoid that particular snack (and other loud and easily-messy ones), without having to convince the whole table to ban snacks. The assumption that all snacks must be permitted if any are is an erroneous, but easily made, one.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> No wonder we don't agree, you are looking at healing word and cure wounds with 0 mod.  How is anyone supposed to legitimately respond to that?


There's actually a reason why I did that. To help show that the average amount of healing is equal to a single attack plus a tiny bit extra from the ability score modifier. Which isn't enough.





> A bone devil is a CR 9 creature.  It has a 60% chance to hit with it's attacks and if all hit will do about 46 damage.  That's about 28 DPR.  Do you know how much HPR a level 5 cure wounds heals?  about 27.5 (maybe 26.5 if you didn't boost caster stat).  Essentially one cleric turn is enough to negate (on average) at least one turn of CR=Level creature.  And that's not counting if you have something like a life cleric that boosts healing spells and has a channel divinity that can heal alot more.
> 
> I guess the question is how many monster turns of cr=level do you expect 1 max level slot heal spell to negate?  What's reasonable there?  How many would it take to make healing 'good'?


I would say if you wanted to punish pop-up healing, you'd need to create a few new healing spells that are capable of healing a little more than entire round's worth of max average damage without having to dedicate your subclass and Concentration to it. I.E. a Cure Wounds that can heal 46 points of damage, plus a little extra. Which would mean more spells like Heal, or slightly buffed Healing Spirit. Or you can cut the damage NPCs do in half.

Otherwise every single combat encounter just ends up being a prolonged death spiral, until one drops to 0 and then the death spiral becomes faster. And in order to counter that, players will simply turn to rocket tag, and try to end fights before enemies get a single turn.

But if you do make such a change to healing, you end up breaking the entire game. Every encounter becomes nothing but a stall fight.

Hence why I say, leave healing as it is. Don't penalize pop-up healing. Like it or not, but healing, PC HP, and NPC damage is balanced around a player going down, and being brought up to a few hit points to keep going. Changing that throws off the balance of everything.

----------


## animorte

> And in order to counter that, players will simply turn to rocket tag, and try to end fights before enemies get a single turn.


Dont plenty of people try to do this anyway? I believe the discussion about Alert made that very clear.




> But if you do make such a change to healing, you end up breaking the entire game. Every encounter becomes nothing but a stall fight.


Sure if the fight is always only a race to 0 HP. Theres a lot more that can happen. Much like most discussions on here, this seems like a white room problem. In actual play, there are many possible creative circumstances that have a lot less to do with HP.




> Hence why I say, leave healing as it is. Don't penalize pop-up healing. Like it or not, but healing, PC HP, and NPC damage is balanced around a player going down, and being brought up to a few hit points to keep going. Changing that throws off the balance of everything.


I agree with this though. It does function well enough, especially considering what I just said. There are fairly balanced pros and cons to whatever the party decides to do.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> One question to answer, I think, if one wishes to disincentivize pop-up healing, is why they dislike it. This isn't a rhetorical question, trying to claim there's no reason not to like it, but rather a question trying to get to the heart of what is disliked about it, so that that can be addressed.
> 
> For example, if it's strictly a verisimilitude problem where healing magic being used primarily on downed targets who then get back up, right as rain and able to fight at 100% until they take another hit, then one way to do it would actually be to allow PCs and other creatures that get to make death saves (rather than dying at 0 hp) to keep acting normally at 0 hp. Increase the number of death saves to 5, and allow creatures to keep fighting until they've failed 2 or 3 death saves (calibrate as you like). Now, the "buffer" of 0 hp is still there, and you want to hit them with healing magic ASAP to keep them from auto-failing death saves with the next few hits. The increased number of death saves is to compensate for the fact that any excuse to not hit the 0 hp target is now gone; if your table already does its best to pound downed PCs to death, you may not need this.
> 
> Now, this may or may not address what the real objection to pop-up healing is, depending on what that objection is! But it addresses the verisimilitude problem of waiting for the PC to drop before trying to heal him (how uncompassionate!) and of the PCs bouncing up and down like stand-up men on a toddler's high chair tray.
> 
> Now, to me, there is no verisimilitude problem, and it even is genre-appropriate, that PCs will go down and then be healed back to standing and keep going on heroic resolve. That's honestly how a lot of fights in the big shonen anime tend to go: the hero gets beaten up but keeps fighting until he goes down, and then a friend does something to bolster him back to his feet, where he keeps fighting. In anime that have overtaken the manga, or some manga, this may repeat 2-3 times for a very dramatic/prolonged fight. But, just because I don't have a problem with it doesn't mean others don't.
> 
> If there is another reason people dislike it and want to discourage pop-up healing, then knowing why they want to discourage it will help design rules that discourage it in a way that encourages desired behavior. Is it really just, "I want you healing before they get to 0 hp?" If so, why? Why is that specific behavior so much more desirable? Think about it carefully; it is easy to confuse a behavior you want because it leads to something you actually want with being the thing you genuinely want. For example, you might think you want to ban eating snacks at the table because one player is loud and messy with his crunchy chips, and it makes a mess and makes it hard for you to hear the DM. In reality, all you really want is that player not to eat those chips and make that mess, and that could be accomplished by either banning that particular snack or asking that particular player to avoid that particular snack (and other loud and easily-messy ones), without having to convince the whole table to ban snacks. The assumption that all snacks must be permitted if any are is an erroneous, but easily made, one.


I can only answer this for myself.  I personally (both as a DM and a player) find pop-up healing jarring, weird, and somewhat immersion breaking.  It does seem to me that there should be some consequence of having this happen to a character beyond what is RAW.  I know there have been a number of posts on this thread listing possible consequences of hitting 0 hp, but most, if not all, of these, are somewhat circumstantial.  To me, at the most basic level, a character (or monster/ foe) that hits 0 hp, then bounces back should not be as functional as they were before they hit 0. I'm not fussy about what that condition should entail, I just think it should be something.

One other thing that occurs to me as I think back over this thread is that the discussions around pop-up are largely player centered, which makes sense as it's optional for the DM to use this on foes, and likely tends to be used seldom, or only on important enemies.  I wonder if the push back against pop-up would be stronger if DMs used this with more frequency for monsters/ enemies.  Given that players win most/ all fights, what if they were constantly playing Whack-a-Mole?

----------


## animorte

> I can only answer this for myself.  I personally (both as a DM and a player) find pop-up healing jarring, weird, and somewhat immersion breaking.  It does seem to me that there should be some consequence of having this happen to a character beyond what is RAW.  I know there have been a number of posts on this thread listing possible consequences of hitting 0 hp, but most, if not all, of these, are somewhat circumstantial.  To me, at the most basic level, a character (or monster/ foe) that hits 0 hp, then bounces back should not be as functional as they were before they hit 0. I'm not fussy about what that condition should entail, I just think it should be something.


I definitely feel that. One thing Ive brought up consistently during various discussions is immersion. It can be a strong factor of enjoyment. I do honestly think the new ONE exhaustion rules are a good set up for that. You only take a -1 to rolls, -1 for each level of exhaustion, 10 levels until death (I think).




> One other thing that occurs to me as I think back over this thread is that the discussions around pop-up are largely player centered, which makes sense as it's optional for the DM to use this on foes, and likely tends to be used seldom, or only on important enemies.  I wonder if the push back against pop-up would be stronger if DMs used this with more frequency for monsters/ enemies.  Given that players win most/ all fights, what if they were constantly playing Whack-a-Mole?


I have done this using that pop-up healing idea. Ive run direct mirrors to the party, classes the party lacked, or random themes I wanted to go with. Basically Ive run enough encounters like legitimate NPC party vs PC party. Losing the move can bring on some bad feels, but even worse when everybody targets the character because they popped up and realized you need to double-tap.

Imagine a player getting targeted after being popped back up and how bad that feels to nearly guarantee PC death just because the opponents are coordinated. (To be clear, Im not that ruthless. Just a point worth noting.)

----------


## deadman1204

I think death saves are the biggest reason for why healing is broken. 5th ed is designed to be war gaming light where the players win.

To kill a PC, an enemy must spend a full round attacking someone who is not a threat (unconscious on the ground) instead of doing anything else that contributes to the fight.
This basic design makes it a bad choice to kill a PC tactically (especially if the npc doesn't know there are characters with heal spells to stand that person back up). 

The design doubles down on bad game creation, because in attacking a downed PC, the DM is deliberately going out of their way to kill a person's character. The monster must spend the entire round attacking that person on the ground while NOT defending itself. Knocking a PC to zero happens. However then intentionally ignoring the fight and spending an entire round to kill the character is a different thing that can cause out of character friction.

----------


## Segev

> I can only answer this for myself.  I personally (both as a DM and a player) find pop-up healing jarring, weird, and somewhat immersion breaking.  It does seem to me that there should be some consequence of having this happen to a character beyond what is RAW.  I know there have been a number of posts on this thread listing possible consequences of hitting 0 hp, but most, if not all, of these, are somewhat circumstantial.  To me, at the most basic level, a character (or monster/ foe) that hits 0 hp, then bounces back should not be as functional as they were before they hit 0. I'm not fussy about what that condition should entail, I just think it should be something.
> 
> One other thing that occurs to me as I think back over this thread is that the discussions around pop-up are largely player centered, which makes sense as it's optional for the DM to use this on foes, and likely tends to be used seldom, or only on important enemies.  I wonder if the push back against pop-up would be stronger if DMs used this with more frequency for monsters/ enemies.  Given that players win most/ all fights, what if they were constantly playing Whack-a-Mole?


Okay, you find pop-up healing jarring and immersion-breaking. Is it that they were hurt enough to go down but then are back up again? Or is it that they reached 0 and that just absolutely should be game-changing in a bad way for them? If the latter, why?

----------


## animorte

> Okay, you find pop-up healing jarring and immersion-breaking. Is it that they were hurt enough to go down but then are back up again? Or is it that they reached 0 and that just absolutely should be game-changing in a bad way for them? If the latter, why?


I dont personally think it should be game-changing, but it should be felt.

_You just went unconscious.

Yeah, now Im functioning at 100% capacity.

Youre unconscious again.

Healed Functioning at 100% capacity again._

How many times does one person need to be knocked unconscious in one day to start seeing negative effects? Currently, unlimited, as long as theres 1 HP worth of healing available each time.

----------


## 5eNeedsDarksun

> I definitely feel that. One thing Ive brought up consistently during various discussions is immersion. It can be a strong factor of enjoyment. I do honestly think the new ONE exhaustion rules are a good set up for that. You only take a -1 to rolls, -1 for each level of exhaustion, 10 levels until death (I think).
> 
> 
> I have done this using that pop-up healing idea. Ive run direct mirrors to the party, classes the party lacked, or random themes I wanted to go with. Basically Ive run enough encounters like legitimate NPC party vs PC party. Losing the move can bring on some bad feels, but even worse when everybody targets the character because they popped up and realized you need to double-tap.
> 
> Imagine a player getting targeted after being popped back up and how bad that feels to nearly guarantee PC death just because the opponents are coordinated. (To be clear, Im not that ruthless. Just a point worth noting.)


If we're being honest, smart creatures or ones accustomed to battle are going to realize downed creatures are still a huge threat, and easy to hit under RAW.  I don't think it's ruthless to play battles out with this in mind.  I remember some lore about Giants hitting opponents one more time to make sure they're dead; I don't know if there are other monsters that might tend to do this.  The next thing I'm DMing is SKT, so if I do leave the rules as-is I think players will learn of this tactic as they progress.  It'll be interesting to see if the adopt different tactics as a result.

----------


## animorte

> It'll be interesting to see if the adopt different tactics as a result.


Everybody having a 1-level dip in Grave Cleric becomes a lot more valuable.  :Small Tongue: 

Seriously though, yes the group takes more active precautions (control and positioning) to avoid damage, at least when they start getting low. Going down (see: Pop-up healing) is a lot more terrifying unless everybody in the party has some form of healing.

----------


## Segev

> I dont personally think it should be game-changing, but it should be felt.
> 
> _You just went unconscious.
> 
> Yeah, now Im functioning at 100% capacity.
> 
> Youre unconscious again.
> 
> Healed Functioning at 100% capacity again._
> ...


So, if they don't go unconscious, your verisimilitude/immersion isn't broken, then?

----------


## animorte

> So, if they don't go unconscious, your verisimilitude/immersion isn't broken, then?


Honestly, either way its fine. I just wonder when it should start to make a difference since there are no lasting consequences.

----------


## Segev

> Honestly, either way its fine. I just wonder when it should start to make a difference since there are no lasting consequences.


Why not "at death?"

----------


## animorte

> Why not "at death?"


Why is there no gray area?

Ok Ill be the first to say this back and forth, while amusing, isnt going anywhere.

The black and white of completely functional and completely useless doesnt make any sense to me. Why is it so wrong to make limits and find a _reasonable_ gray area for extreme amounts of damage taking a toll on your body.

We have plenty of different status conditions, only one of which is exhaustion. If these are acceptable in their various forms of implementation, why is it so difficult to believe that falling unconscious _might_ cause lasting effects, aside from strictly death? And if it is only death, how exactly is that threshold being reached?

----------


## Reach Weapon

> To kill a PC, an enemy must spend a full round attacking someone who is not a threat (unconscious on the ground) instead of doing anything else that contributes to the fight.


Perhaps we move in very different circles, but very few of the opposing forces encountered at the tables I frequent engage in combat with a goal of "to fight". Hungry monsters chomp downed players because that's the best way to get the food out. Soul-stealers absolutely want to get at least one unboxing video in the proverbial can. Reoccurring villains love a good funeral. The list goes on...




> In more than one word, it is not the DM's job to punish players (dock XP) for not playing the game the way he wants them to play.


I don't want to push too far down a tangent about theories on the DM's role, and which of the knobs they have they can adjust for which reasons, at least on this thread, but while your negative characterization and objections are noted, controlling how rewarding various activities are is standard and adjusting against pop-up healing is an option that might be appropriate for some tables.

----------


## Segev

> Why is there no gray area?
> 
> Ok Ill be the first to say this back and forth, while amusing, isnt going anywhere.
> 
> The black and white of completely functional and completely useless doesnt make any sense to me. Why is it so wrong to make limits and find a _reasonable_ gray area for extreme amounts of damage taking a toll on your body.
> 
> We have plenty of different status conditions, only one of which is exhaustion. If these are acceptable in their various forms of implementation, why is it so difficult to believe that falling unconscious _might_ cause lasting effects, aside from strictly death? And if it is only death, how exactly is that threshold being reached?


This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at with my questions, actually: finding out what it is you want to see. If I understand you correctly - and please do correct me if I'm wrong, clarify if I am off slightly, and elaborate if there's anything I'm missing nuance, detail, or am too sparse on - then it sounds like you would like to see a stage where, after taking a certain amount of damage, the PCs no longer are fully functional, but are not yet dead or even necessarily out of the fight. Do you want this to be a state from which they can recover with healing? Or is this something that is irreversible, at least in combat time?

Do you want this state to be the motive to heal before they get to it, since they can't recover from it? Or is that incidental to there BEING such a state at all?

----------


## Pex

> Why is there no gray area?
> 
> Ok Ill be the first to say this back and forth, while amusing, isnt going anywhere.
> 
> The black and white of completely functional and completely useless doesnt make any sense to me. Why is it so wrong to make limits and find a _reasonable_ gray area for extreme amounts of damage taking a toll on your body.
> 
> We have plenty of different status conditions, only one of which is exhaustion. If these are acceptable in their various forms of implementation, why is it so difficult to believe that falling unconscious _might_ cause lasting effects, aside from strictly death? And if it is only death, how exactly is that threshold being reached?


I don't find exhaustion to be acceptable.  :Small Yuk: 

As for why, because it's a game. For players to have fun they need to do stuff. Set backs, conditions, and all that are part of the game, but it's not fun to sit there doing nothing for 20 minutes while everyone else gets to play because your character dropped to 0 hit points. It's why Save or Die/Suck spells and other effects have been changed to Save or Suck, but you get another save at the end of your turn for a chance to end the effect and play next round. Losing your turn is a big deal. Action economy is king. It's supposed to be a Feels Bad. That's fine. That's risk. That's game. Losing all the rest of your turns, that's not fun. Story is important. Verisimilitude is important. However, it's still a game, and game function is important too.

----------


## Jervis

Take any healing spells HP recovery value
Multiply it by 2
Easy clap

----------


## Kane0

> I don't find exhaustion to be acceptable. 
> 
> As for why, because it's a game. For players to have fun they need to do stuff. Set backs, conditions, and all that are part of the game, but it's not fun to sit there doing nothing for 20 minutes while everyone else gets to play because your character dropped to 0 hit points.


So substitute in something else, like one minute of Poisoned or 5.1's exhaustion or disadvantage on the next few rolls you make equal to the number of death saves you had to make or whatever.

Edit: Weakened could be a cool new condition to make use of here, same effect as Ray of Enfeeblement but also apply something to magic output as well.

----------


## animorte

> This is the kind of thing I was trying to get at with my questions, actually: finding out what it is you want to see. If I understand you correctly - and please do correct me if I'm wrong, clarify if I am off slightly, and elaborate if there's anything I'm missing nuance, detail, or am too sparse on - then it sounds like you would like to see a stage where, after taking a certain amount of damage, the PCs no longer are fully functional, but are not yet dead or even necessarily out of the fight. Do you want this to be a state from which they can recover with healing? Or is this something that is irreversible, at least in combat time?
> 
> Do you want this state to be the motive to heal before they get to it, since they can't recover from it? Or is that incidental to there BEING such a state at all?


Clarity in communication is key. Youre certainly living up to that quote of yours I saved.  :Small Tongue: 

Yes, at some point, any character should start to feel the effects of getting the snot kicked out of them. The threshold for that seems fair at 0 HP. If you are knocked unconscious, why?
Did you take a bonk on the head from non-lethal damage? Not likely, as they removed that in moving from 3.5 to 5e.Did you pass out from an unbearable amount of pain?Was this unconscious state caused by a severe loss of blood?Have you not had any water to drink all day when the temperature threatens to break record highs?

There should be lasting effects to these circumstances instead of getting 1+ magical point of healing and suddenly Im functioning as if I dont have a concussion, didnt just suffer extreme pain, didnt just lose 5 pints of blood, or am completely hydrated. I like descriptors to go with my in-game actions and effects.

However, I do think the state should be something one can easily recover from. Perhaps being restored back to full health would remove whatever effect, or at least half (would work for me). Will continue further below




> I don't find exhaustion to be acceptable. 
> 
> As for why, because it's a game. For players to have fun they need to do stuff. Set backs, conditions, and all that are part of the game, but it's not fun to sit there doing nothing for 20 minutes while everyone else gets to play because your character dropped to 0 hit points. It's why Save or Die/Suck spells and other effects have been changed to Save or Suck, but you get another save at the end of your turn for a chance to end the effect and play next round. Losing your turn is a big deal. Action economy is king. It's supposed to be a Feels Bad. That's fine. That's risk. That's game. Losing all the rest of your turns, that's not fun. Story is important. Verisimilitude is important. However, it's still a game, and game function is important too.


You make a very good point that it really shouldnt remove the fun of the game. I agree, thats the whole point. Its no longer a game if you cant have fun.

I dont think it ruins the fun of the game at all if there is an additional minimal challenge that says to you clearly, hey, that hurt! Moving forward, I would like to continue not hurting as such. Say the entire party gets smacked by a fireball, or at least threatened (assuming some succeed and might have Evasion). I guarantee you their first order of business is getting out of fireball formation, then probably addressing that caster.

I do think youre hyperbolizing here just a bit, assuming the absolute worst. Im not looking to ruin anybodys day, just throw in a reminder that youve gone down and thats not a fun thing to do. I dont think anybody should be under the effects of the _slow_ spell or suffering disadvantage on everything, for example.




> So substitute something else, like 5.1's exhaustion.


Snipped, strictly to point something out:

I think Ones form of exhaustion is perfect. A -1 to everything is minimal. Chances are any character that is suffering 1-3 levels of exhaustion has already neutralized that with their bonuses, not to mention the new _guidance_ and _resistance_ function.

You would need to be subject to several levels of exhaustion in order to actually suffer from it, and it ruin your day. At that point, you probably deserve it. I think its fine to acquire one level of exhaustion at reaching 0 HP. Sure, have your pop-up healing, but theres a lasting effect.

However, if it becomes easier to acquire exhaustion, it should certainly be a little easier to remove it. Take one level off for a short rest. Take 3-4 off for a long rest. Done.

----------


## Dork_Forge

General statement: having levels of exhaustion is not 'unable to do anything,' it's not a deal breaker, and I'll go one further: if adding 5e exhaustion to dropping to 0 is only a death spiral if you were already circling the drain. If it's really a problem, then characters were dropping to zero so frequently they were probably only alive to begin with due to luck or a nice DM.




> I think Ones form of exhaustion is perfect. A -1 to everything is minimal. Chances are any character that is suffering 1-3 levels of exhaustion has already neutralized that with their bonuses, not to mention the new _guidance_ and _resistance_ function.


Since it came up, I think it's a terrible execution. It makes you track negatives, which is a bit backwards, and is a little ridiculous when you view it through not sleeping. You can just go 9-10 days without sleep and still be a functioning person? That's a huge leap into 'heroics' that I can't think of any examples of in any fiction.

----------


## Pex

> So substitute in something else, like one minute of Poisoned or 5.1's exhaustion or disadvantage on the next few rolls you make equal to the number of death saves you had to make or whatever.
> 
> Edit: Weakened could be a cool new condition to make use of here, same effect as Ray of Enfeeblement but also apply something to magic output as well.


I like D&Done's Dazed condition. You can move or take an action, but not both, and no bonus action or reaction. It's an at least you get to do something Thing. Have it last only one round though. You drop. Get healed. Dazed on your next turn. The following turn you're back to so called normal. Higher level spells like Heal or maybe a healing spell using a 3rd or 4th level spell slot or above removes the Dazed condition effect.

3E had something like this if I recall correctly if you dropped to 0 hit points exactly.

----------


## animorte

> Since it came up, I think it's a terrible execution. It makes you track negatives, which is a bit backwards, and is a little ridiculous when you view it through not sleeping. You can just go 9-10 days without sleep and still be a functioning person? That's a huge leap into 'heroics' that I can't think of any examples of in any fiction.


I disagree. Its easier to keep up with than just adding on all the various effects that different levels of exhaustion have.

I dont think its a _huge_ leap, but its certainly out of our real world reach, which aligns with most of the D&D world.




> I like D&Done's Dazed condition. You can move or take an action, but not both, and no bonus action or reaction. It's an at least you get to do something Thing. Have it last only one round though. You drop. Get healed. Dazed on your next turn. The following turn you're back to so called normal.


This also looks reasonable. You feel it briefly, but it takes a few seconds to collect your wits and get back to operating efficiently.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I disagree. Its easier to keep up with than just adding on all the various effects that different levels of exhaustion have.


Think of it like this, exhaustion as is just disadvantage for 2/3 of the levels you're most likely to actually experience and half speed for the second level. 

The new exhaustion isn't just a number you need to keep in mind, it affects the math you do every single time you roll a D20, rather than just rolling a second one.




> I dont think its a _huge_ leap, but its certainly out of our real world reach, which aligns with most of the D&D world.


It isn't just out of real world reach, it's _five days longer_ than it takes to kill you in 5E, whilst only affecting you in a single way (d20 rolls). The notion of 'I haven't slept in ten days, but keeping up this full-speed pace and taking the beating I normally do is as easy as ever' is a massive failure of verisimilitude.

And just an aside:

The penalty for exhaustion is arguably lower per level, but there are also significantly more levels, whilst long resting is still just a single-level removal. As it currently stands, it's very likely you'll be exhausted more often in D&D One because it's a 'lighter' condition that can easily take longer to get rid of.

And unlike disadvantage which can be neutralised or end up not hindering you, negative numbers are always a hindrance you have to overcome, effectively ratcheting up the DCs you face and increasing the difficulty of encounters well beyond their initial scope.

----------


## animorte

> It isn't just out of real world reach, it's _five days longer_ than it takes to kill you in 5E, whilst only affecting you in a single way (d20 rolls). The notion of 'I haven't slept in ten days, but keeping up this full-speed pace and taking the beating I normally do is as easy as ever' is a massive failure of verisimilitude.


Yes, thats true. Isnt it 6 levels in 5e currently though?




> The penalty for exhaustion is arguably lower per level, but there are also significantly more levels, whilst long resting is still just a single-level removal. As it currently stands, it's very likely you'll be exhausted more often in D&D One because it's a 'lighter' condition that can easily take longer to get rid of.


It is, in fact, _not_ likely more often considering there arent actually any additional ways to acquire exhaustion, just more total levels.




> And unlike disadvantage which can be neutralised or end up not hindering you, negative numbers are always a hindrance you have to overcome, effectively ratcheting up the DCs you face and increasing the difficulty of encounters well beyond their initial scope.


Yes, I was talking about how easily disadvantage could be neutralized with current 5e rules, a few pages ago. That was ignored (by someone else though).

----------


## sithlordnergal

> I dont personally think it should be game-changing, but it should be felt.
> 
> _You just went unconscious.
> 
> Yeah, now Im functioning at 100% capacity.
> 
> Youre unconscious again.
> 
> Healed Functioning at 100% capacity again._
> ...


So, a thing to consider: Magical healing technically does way, way more than just healing 1hp. Go look at the lingering injuries from page 272 in the DMG. Unless its a scar or a lost limb, any form of magical healing will heal it. Broken bones? Healing Word, Good Berry, or a standard Healing Potion will heal it. Internal injury? Same sort of deal. Got a limp? Limp down to your local Priest for a Cure Wounds, its fixed now. 

So why are they able to function at 100% capacity after just 1d4+X points of healing? Cause that healing can apparently fix just about any injury, as long as your limbs are attached and it isn't a scar.

----------


## Kane0

Dazed works for me, especially since when you get KO'd you fall prone.

----------


## Dork_Forge

To the Dazed crowd: I'm failing to see how that isn't pushing the death spiral more than a level of exhaustion, am I missing something?




> Yes, thats true. Isnt it 6 levels in 5e currently though?


Yeah 6 to death in 5e, 11 in One. 




> It is, in fact, _not_ likely more often considering there arent actually any additional ways to acquire exhaustion, just more total levels.


It would be very odd to both make each level lesser in severity and greatly increase the total number of them, without increasing how much it's used.

It's not like exhaustion is a thing you commonly interact with now, if they didn't increase exposure to it... then what's the point in having it at all?




> Yes, I was talking about how easily disadvantage could be neutralized with current 5e rules, a few pages ago. That was ignored (by someone else though).


Oh to clarify that part wasn't directed at you, I should have made that more clear.




> So, a thing to consider: Magical healing technically does way, way more than just healing 1hp. Go look at the lingering injuries from page 272 in the DMG. Unless its a scar or a lost limb, any form of magical healing will heal it. Broken bones? Healing Word, Good Berry, or a standard Healing Potion will heal it. Internal injury? Same sort of deal. Got a limp? Limp down to your local Priest for a Cure Wounds, its fixed now. 
> 
> So why are they able to function at 100% capacity after just 1d4+X points of healing? Cause that healing can apparently fix just about any injury, as long as your limbs are attached and it isn't a scar.


I get where you're coming from, but:

- You're pointing to a DMG variant to support core rules experience, it's less of a sturdy argument and more a reflection of how they designed that variant to not be meaningful.

- Any old magical healing doesn't heal exhaustion or mental affects. 

Losing consciousness in real life is a big deal, the ideal would be the action movie version where it's not a big deal, but you at least get the whoozy after effects in the immediate aftermath.

----------


## Kane0

> To the Dazed crowd: I'm failing to see how that isn't pushing the death spiral more than a level of exhaustion, am I missing something?


I guess its a preference thing, would you rather a half dozen or more small setbacks for the rest of the day that grow as it happens more or one big setback for your next turn, but doesnt get more severe?

----------


## animorte

> It's not like exhaustion is a thing you commonly interact with now, if they didn't increase exposure to it... then what's the point in having it at all?


Thats been my view for this entire discussion. 




> Oh to clarify that part wasn't directed at you, I should have made that more clear.


I gathered that. I was just nice to see mention that somebody else also acknowledges that fact.  :Small Big Grin:

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I guess its a preference thing, would you rather a half dozen or more small setbacks for the rest of the day that grow as it happens more or one big setback for your next turn, but doesnt get more severe?


I'd rather have exhaustion, it isn't nearly as likely to end in death and can be more easily neutralized. 

If you hit 0, then you're prone. If you're dazed, then you need to choose between taking an action or getting up, and if you get up you only have half your speed to try and move away. 

If you take the action, then you're left prone, likely in front of what just knocked you unconscious to begin with. Melee attacks would be at disadvantage, ranged attacks likely to be at disadvantage, spells in a hard spot since you're so incredibly vulnerable.

Some disadvantage is positively kiddy gloves in comparison, especially since if PCs are going to 0 HP, things are not going well in general.




> Thats been my view for this entire discussion. 
> 
> 
> I gathered that. I was just nice to see mention that somebody else also acknowledges that fact.


We seem to be on the same page!

----------


## Pex

> To the Dazed crowd: I'm failing to see how that isn't pushing the death spiral more than a level of exhaustion, am I missing something?


For me the main thing is the idea would be it only lasts one round then you're back to normal two rounds later. Have the penalty for having dropped, but don't punish the character for the audacity of dice rolling. For people who don't have any issue with pop-up healing it's a fair compromise because you still have the opportunity to do something. Exhaustion you cannot get rid of until you long rest. It stays with you for the rest of the game day.

Unfortunately, I just realized this favors casters heavily. By being dropped to 0 you fall prone. To be Dazed is to move or take an action, not both. You're prone. The spellcaster can stay prone and use an action to cast a spell. The warrior can only get up. He can't really attack anyone unless he stays prone in melee. You would need to add a house rule that despite being Dazed you can still stand up from prone.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> For me the main thing is the idea would be it only lasts one round then you're back to normal two rounds later. Have the penalty for having dropped, but don't punish the character for the audacity of dice rolling. For people who don't have any issue with pop-up healing it's a fair compromise because you still have the opportunity to do something. Exhaustion you cannot get rid of until you long rest. It stays with you for the rest of the game day.
> 
> Unfortunately, I just realized this favors casters heavily. By being dropped to 0 you fall prone. To be Dazed is to move or take an action, not both. You're prone. The spellcaster can stay prone and use an action to cast a spell. The warrior can only get up. He can't really attack anyone unless he stays prone in melee. You would need to add a house rule that despite being Dazed you can still stand up from prone.


But if you added that house rule, you'd be left with 'take an action or move half your movement.' And even spellcasters are left on death's door prone with no hit points.

You're far more likely to die or at least keep just going down by being dazed than just taking exhaustion?

And the audacity of dice rolling thing is... a stance. If you aren't allowed to penalise rolls than you're playing an entirely different game.

----------


## Kane0

> Unfortunately, I just realized this favors casters heavily. By being dropped to 0 you fall prone. To be Dazed is to move or take an action, not both. You're prone. The spellcaster can stay prone and use an action to cast a spell. The warrior can only get up. He can't really attack anyone unless he stays prone in melee. You would need to add a house rule that despite being Dazed you can still stand up from prone.


Say Dazed halves your movement and pick action or bonus action, not both.

----------


## Pex

> But if you added that house rule, you'd be left with 'take an action or move half your movement.' And even spellcasters are left on death's door prone with no hit points.
> 
> You're far more likely to die or at least keep just going down by being dazed than just taking exhaustion?
> 
> And the audacity of dice rolling thing is... a stance. If you aren't allowed to penalise rolls than you're playing an entirely different game.


It's not no hit points. it's pop-up healing hit points. Having low hit points to be dropped again is always a possibility whether you leave things alone, use Dazed, or use exhaustion.




> Say Dazed halves your movement and pick action or bonus action, not both.


That is feedback to give D&Done, but this is _our_ problem not theirs. Their Dazed condition is liked. It works as is. It's this proposed house rule of using it to deter pop-up healing causing an extra problem because you're prone. The house rule causes the spellcaster-fighter discrepancy, not Dazed. Therefore, in my opinion as I sort of started it here, the Dazed condition doesn't work as a suitable solution. Looks good on paper. Doesn't work in practice.

However, we can learn something from this and say when you drop and get healed you lose your next Action. You can still get up and move the rest of your speed already cut in half because you got up. Take a page from Haste where you lose your next turn when the spell ends, but you're allowed to get up in this case. It becomes a question of when you get healed of how many turns you effectively lost if you're dropped and not healed before your next turn for example.

----------


## Sigreid

I've been thinking about this, and I think the strength of the healing is pretty smart.  It provides another reason for short rests to recover and recharge short rest abilities.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> It's not no hit points. it's pop-up healing hit points. Having low hit points to be dropped again is always a possibility whether you leave things alone, use Dazed, or use exhaustion.


You're splitting hairs, obviously you'd have some hit points because you were just brough from zero, however, traditional pop-up healing is usually in the region of 10 or less hit points. Between that very low number (relative to the vast majority of character progression, even by most played standards) and being prone, you're extremely likely to go back down. And depending on your level, you're even vulnerable to insta-death thank's to a low current HP and increased chance of a crit (to say nothing of some monsters that just flat do more damage when they have advantage).

Even if you choose to get up, you likely can't go anywhere if a monster is still next/near to you. You wouldn't have the action economy to disengage or teleport.

This is obviously a matter of taste, but dazed seems way more lethal and if your issue is that Exhaustion is not fun, I'd have to wonder why high lethality isn't also not fun.




> I've been thinking about this, and I think the strength of the healing is pretty smart.  It provides another reason for short rests to recover and recharge short rest abilities.


This is definitely part of the picture, short rests are really well done imo, few classes aren't getting additional stuff from it besides HP too.

----------


## Zuras

> Cure Wounds could use some love.  One whole action for 1d8+Casting Modifier is rarely worth it and upcasting doesn't make it much better.  Healing Word at least has the decency to let you keep your action for something more fun.
> 
> A fix I've had in mind, but haven't tried, is to allow someone to increase the casting time of Cure Wounds to 1 minute to maximize the healing.  Just makes it a decent out of combat healing option.


In my experience, Cure Wounds only gets used by Celestial Warlocks who have to upcast it anyway.  Its not bad, but its not a great use of a long rest slot.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> In my experience, Cure Wounds only gets used by Celestial Warlocks who have to upcast it anyway.  Its not bad, but its not a great use of a long rest slot.


Unimproved it can be a good use of 1st level slots for some characters, the Bard MC in one of my games has it and Healing Word so he can use the most appropriate spell for the occasion, for example. 

Separately, the Stars Druid in my other game keeps Cure Wounds on hand but not Healing Word, with the Chalice form she values total HP recovered.

Some classes use (and upcast it) because it's what they have, like Rangers and Paladins, whilst anyone that actually boosts it's value appreciate the extra hit points.



This brings back an important question though, Cure Wounds is a substantial amount of hit points relative to the average PCs hit point max for a good chunk of the most frequently played levels. What percentage would actually be good enough for detractors of that particular spell?*

*And I'm asking about Cure Wounds, not Cure Wounds vs Healing Word, where the latter is obviously overtuned.

----------


## falconflicker

As a potential solution to the issue of there no being anything between a character is fine (1+ HP) and unconscious, what about, instead of a character falling unconscious at 0 hp, they fall unconscious at -[con mod (min 1)] hp, and are dazed at 0, death saves as normal?

----------


## Dork_Forge

> As a potential solution to the issue of there no being anything between a character is fine (1+ HP) and unconscious, what about, instead of a character falling unconscious at 0 hp, they fall unconscious at -[con mod (min 1)] hp, and are dazed at 0, death saves as normal?


Makes the game a lot easier and interferes with various abilities that would need tweaking.

----------


## falconflicker

> Makes the game a lot easier and interferes with various abilities that would need tweaking.


Could you elaborate further?

----------


## Dork_Forge

> Could you elaborate further?


This is assuming that you end up in the gap between 0 and -Con mod:

5E isn't a hard game to begin with, this effectively makes it harder to kill a character as they have the potential to still kill monsters/escape danger, or even heal themselves when they should be dying by game expectations. Then you have features like the Half-orc's Relentless Endurance, the Barbarian's Relentless Rage, the Samurai's Strength Before Death and so on. Then there's things like how it would interact with the stabilization rules and Spare the Dying, or Disintegrate, Wild Shape etc.

Relative to other fixes it's a lot to consider, whilst leaning in the direction of making it harder to die, rather than 'punishing' dropping to 0 in combat.

----------


## Goobahfish

So a few thoughts.

*Dazed* 
This works. Basically it is saying... after you get up from zero you lose a turn. You can do some small things, but you definitely want to avoid it. No one in their right mind would hover around zero to soak up extra damage.

The main downside is that it robs you of your ability to do things and puts you essentially in the same risky position as before. However, on the bright side, being 5e there is a fair chance the thing attacking you might already be dead/disabled by the other party members etc. You can move away if you're willing to take the OA.

Also, if people are going to 'pop you up', it is likely they will try to invest in a big 'pop-up' (i.e. something that does 15-20 HP) rather than just Healing Word with a level 1 slot. This 'feels less gamey'.

*Exhaustion*
Regardless of which version you use, this feels a bit questionable because it really does a death-spiral. Now, you are less effective for the rest of the session, which will have knock-on effects. Not only are you now keeping track of another 'minor bonus' (using the new version) but because of bounded accuracy, you are 'worse at everything'. So for the rest of the day, your character sucks. Including making Dex saves to avoid fireballs... oh wait... double exhausted now.

While I have serious injuries in my system, they aren't guaranteed. You can fall to zero (and below) and still get back up again. The risk is there and the penalties can be large (although they aren't systematic like exhaustion) but it is 'a risk'. Having an exhaustion-based mechanic is saying you can fall over 6 or 10 times before you literally just die. Moreover, in the new version if you fall over 3 or 4 times, you are basically gone. -4 to all rolls is enough to make a character 'un-fun' to play.

*Reduced Max HP*
No one commented on this so I was sad. Just to reiterate. The idea is that when you fall below zero, any excess damage is 'max HP reduction' which evaporates with rest. I think this is a 'real penalty' that won't seriously affect the characters' agency but does represent a real 'this much is too much'. It also directly relates to the character's durability.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> So a few thoughts.
> 
> *Dazed* 
> This works. Basically it is saying... after you get up from zero you lose a turn. You can do some small things, but you definitely want to avoid it. No one in their right mind would hover around zero to soak up extra damage.
> 
> The main downside is that it robs you of your ability to do things and puts you essentially in the same risky position as before. However, on the bright side, being 5e there is a fair chance the thing attacking you might already be dead/disabled by the other party members etc. You can move away if you're willing to take the OA.
> 
> Also, if people are going to 'pop you up', it is likely they will try to invest in a big 'pop-up' (i.e. something that does 15-20 HP) rather than just Healing Word with a level 1 slot. *This 'feels less gamey'.*


I agree with the bold, I just personally think dazed is a much steeper off ramp into a death spiral, one that doesn't accumulate like exhaustion and can smack down an entire party easily.




> *Exhaustion*
> Regardless of which version you use, this feels a bit questionable because it really does a death-spiral. Now, you are less effective for the rest of the session, which will have knock-on effects. Not only are you now keeping track of another 'minor bonus' (using the new version) but because of bounded accuracy, you are 'worse at everything'. So for the rest of the day, your character sucks. Including making Dex saves to avoid fireballs... oh wait... double exhausted now.
> 
> While I have serious injuries in my system, they aren't guaranteed. You can fall to zero (and below) and still get back up again. The risk is there and the penalties can be large (although they aren't systematic like exhaustion) but it is 'a risk'. Having an exhaustion-based mechanic is saying you can fall over 6 or 10 times before you literally just die. Moreover, in the new version if you fall over 3 or 4 times, you are basically gone. -4 to all rolls is enough to make a character 'un-fun' to play.


What are your thoughts on 5e exhaustion, though? You're not tracking a number negative and it doesn't hit your attacks and saves until you're 3 levels deep. (My personaly version of this is that the 1st level goes away on a short rest, unless you go down again, in which case all levels are RAW dealt with. So it only starts to spiral if you're dropping to 0 more than once per short rest which... sounds like circling the drain or abusing pop up healing if you were in that situation regularly.)




> *Reduced Max HP*
> No one commented on this so I was sad. Just to reiterate. The idea is that when you fall below zero, any excess damage is 'max HP reduction' which evaporates with rest. I think this is a 'real penalty' that won't seriously affect the characters' agency but does represent a real 'this much is too much'. It also directly relates to the character's durability.


I like this, but it would work better on a videogame or a VTT that allowed for this kind of deep automation. I just don't think that book keeping is something that would go well when it's player-reliant, especially since it kicks off presumably in combat most of the time.

----------


## Doug Lampert

If dazed is too punishing to melee because they have to stand up, then just declare that being reduced to 0 doesn't make you actually fall over and drop what you are carrying till the start of your next turn. You still get all the other effects of being at 0 HP, but you stand there looking silly and staggering arround for a couple of seconds rather than instantly falling over.

Then if melee are healed prior to their next action, they're no worse off than a spellcaster.

----------


## Goobahfish

> What are your thoughts on 5e exhaustion, though?


I really don't like exhaustion as implemented in 5e. The idea of different levels is fine, just the choices of those levels is a bit... disappointing. This is just a personal preference but having disadvantage on 'ability checks' sort of equates to 'disadvantage on roleplaying'. You can fight... just not climb, search, remember things etc. Disadvantage is such a big crude stick that just applying it to everything would be all kinds of awful so I can see why they did it, but for a 'avoid combat' party (i.e., we don't want to fight) this is so strange. Also because 5e is so shaky on ability checks/skill checks etc it kind of hard to adjudicate.

The half movement part I think is a pretty reasonable step and fits quite nicely. I feel like there should have been a 'no bonus action' or some kind of 'action limit'. It is a pity that 5e doesn't really have a good nomenclature for these things. If having exhaustion robbed you of your maximum actions each turn (i.e., Action, Bonus Action, Movement, Interaction, Reaction) and said, exhaustion goes from all 5 to just 4 to just 3 etc. then that might be a better way forward but it is a bit clunky. It fits better with an 'action economy' penalty because that is kind of what exhaustion 'feels like'. You can't get stuff done as easily. Because of bound accuracy, adding in penalties just makes you 'useless' rather than 'lethargic'.




> I like this, but it would work better on a videogame or a VTT that allowed for this kind of deep automation. I just don't think that book keeping is something that would go well when it's player-reliant, especially since it kicks off presumably in combat most of the time.


That is fair. There are a few max HP reduction effects already in the game (exhaustion ironically being one of them). It is also... awkward. You have a real max HP, a temp max HP and a current HP... it is indeed a bit yuck, but it is the kind of thing where there is an obvious 'hard limit' (eventually your max HP will be zero).

----------


## Pex

> You're splitting hairs, obviously you'd have some hit points because you were just brough from zero, however, traditional pop-up healing is usually in the region of 10 or less hit points. Between that very low number (relative to the vast majority of character progression, even by most played standards) and being prone, you're extremely likely to go back down. And depending on your level, you're even vulnerable to insta-death thank's to a low current HP and increased chance of a crit (to say nothing of some monsters that just flat do more damage when they have advantage).
> 
> Even if you choose to get up, you likely can't go anywhere if a monster is still next/near to you. You wouldn't have the action economy to disengage or teleport.
> 
> This is obviously a matter of taste, but dazed seems way more lethal and if your issue is that Exhaustion is not fun, I'd have to wonder why high lethality isn't also not fun.


But now you're doing the proactive/reactive healing debate which is a different issue. Anyone dropped to low hit points is vulnerable to the instant death attacks. Pop-up healing has nothing to do with it. Both Dazed and Exhaustion house rule is more lethal than what exists now because both provide a penalty of some kind doing something when you are healed from being dropped. Pop-up healing, as it is right now, you are at full capacity to do what you want on your turn. You're vulnerable to Divine Word or Power Word, but that's the game playing as normal. Using Dazed is not more lethal than using exhaustion, though in my opinion are different levels of unfun. This only matters for people who hate pop-up healing. Those who have no problem with pop-up healing, such as me, can continue to play the game as normal and deal with the instant death effects we have been dealing with all along.

----------


## Dork_Forge

> I really don't like exhaustion as implemented in 5e. The idea of different levels is fine, just the choices of those levels is a bit... disappointing. This is just a personal preference but having disadvantage on 'ability checks' sort of equates to 'disadvantage on roleplaying'. You can fight... just not climb, search, remember things etc. Disadvantage is such a big crude stick that just applying it to everything would be all kinds of awful so I can see why they did it, but for a 'avoid combat' party (i.e., we don't want to fight) this is so strange. Also because 5e is so shaky on ability checks/skill checks etc it kind of hard to adjudicate.


I get where you're coming from, but skill checks are so trivial in 5E I just never saw it as much of a problem. Help neutralises it, Guidance bumps it etc. and that's before the other features and spells that can be levied. Granted, this is a reflection of how trivial you can make checks in 5E with little investment.




> The half movement part I think is a pretty reasonable step and fits quite nicely. I feel like there should have been a 'no bonus action' or some kind of 'action limit'. It is a pity that 5e doesn't really have a good nomenclature for these things. If having exhaustion robbed you of your maximum actions each turn (i.e., Action, Bonus Action, Movement, Interaction, Reaction) and said, exhaustion goes from all 5 to just 4 to just 3 etc. then that might be a better way forward but it is a bit clunky. It fits better with an 'action economy' penalty because that is kind of what exhaustion 'feels like'. You can't get stuff done as easily. Because of bound accuracy, adding in penalties just makes you 'useless' rather than 'lethargic'.


You never end up useless though, and whilst I understand the reduction of action economy (now you've mentioned it I would have liked exhaustion to include no reactions at some point) exhaustion should make you do things worse. Being sleep deprived is similar to being drunk for how it impacts your ability to function, to bring in a real-world example.




> That is fair. There are a few max HP reduction effects already in the game (exhaustion ironically being one of them). It is also... awkward. You have a real max HP, a temp max HP and a current HP... it is indeed a bit yuck, but it is the kind of thing where there is an obvious 'hard limit' (eventually your max HP will be zero).


I like HP reduction, I'm a fan of Wights for that reason, but the reality of having players track reductions like that amongst also tracking damage, resources and handling their decision trees is messy. I don't mind it so much with exhaustion because it comes up so rarely and has a fixed result (half HP) rather than the result of a damage roll.




> But now you're doing the proactive/reactive healing debate which is a different issue. Anyone dropped to low hit points is vulnerable to the instant death attacks. Pop-up healing has nothing to do with it. Both Dazed and Exhaustion house rule is more lethal than what exists now because both provide a penalty of some kind doing something when you are healed from being dropped. Pop-up healing, as it is right now, you are at full capacity to do what you want on your turn. You're vulnerable to Divine Word or Power Word, but that's the game playing as normal. Using Dazed is not more lethal than using exhaustion, though in my opinion are different levels of unfun. This only matters for people who hate pop-up healing. Those who have no problem with pop-up healing, such as me, can continue to play the game as normal and deal with the instant death effects we have been dealing with all along.


I'm going to preface this by saying you seem to have taken me saying insta-death to mean things like Power Word Kill etc. I was primarily talking about dying from massive damage, which pop-up healing does make more likely in these scenarios between lower hp total and the risk of getting attacked at advantage/not being able to get away. 

When talking about making changes like this I don't care as much about higher level play where PWK etc. would live, because higher level parties have tools to deal with those challenges. But when you put a Tier 1/Tier 2 party in this situation and add dazed, they're far more likely to die in that fight, because it's already not going well and they've become vulnerable even when conscious. Exhaustion isn't going to do that same kind of damage to your combat survivability until you're 3 or more levels into it, and if you're 3 levels into it, then things have already been going wrong.

And to clarify my own position, I like and use healing in 5e as standard, but the discussion is on that topic and pop-up healing is a weak spot in 5e for many and it would be for me if my players decided to attempt to exploit it.

----------


## Pex

> I'm going to preface this by saying you seem to have taken me saying insta-death to mean things like Power Word Kill etc. I was primarily talking about dying from massive damage, which pop-up healing does make more likely in these scenarios between lower hp total and the risk of getting attacked at advantage/not being able to get away. 
> 
> When talking about making changes like this I don't care as much about higher level play where PWK etc. would live, because higher level parties have tools to deal with those challenges. But when you put a Tier 1/Tier 2 party in this situation and add dazed, they're far more likely to die in that fight, because it's already not going well and they've become vulnerable even when conscious. Exhaustion isn't going to do that same kind of damage to your combat survivability until you're 3 or more levels into it, and if you're 3 levels into it, then things have already been going wrong.
> 
> And to clarify my own position, I like and use healing in 5e as standard, but the discussion is on that topic and pop-up healing is a weak spot in 5e for many and it would be for me if my players decided to attempt to exploit it.


But you aren't healing more with exhaustion than you are with Dazed so your vulnerability to more damage remains the same. The only difference is the degree of difficulty you have of doing stuff on your turn, and I maintain exhaustion that is cumulative and remains until next long rest is worse than one round of Dazed.

----------


## Goobahfish

> I get where you're coming from, but skill checks are so trivial in 5E I just never saw it as much of a problem. Help neutralises it, Guidance bumps it etc. and that's before the other features and spells that can be levied. Granted, this is a reflection of how trivial you can make checks in 5E with little investment.


Oh guidance... that is too big a topic but I get what you mean. It isn't a huge effect, but I recall having a lets climb a big cliff where the naturally athletic character had exhaustion. If disadvantage was more tiered I think it would be fine. I'm basically happy for disadvantage on everything to kick in at level 3. It's just level 1 where it is a bit ugly for me. Disadvantage on 'interesting parts of the game' but no penalties for 'boring' combat (you can see my preferences here)...




> You never end up useless though, and whilst I understand the reduction of action economy (now you've mentioned it I would have liked exhaustion to include no reactions at some point) exhaustion should make you do things worse. Being sleep deprived is similar to being drunk for how it impacts your ability to function, to bring in a real-world example.


Yeah, as above, I think getting disadvantage makes sense... except for the lack of granularity. Disadvantage is a pretty big thing. There's no half-disadvantage which would sit better at level 1 for me. A small annoying penalty, but not one that is going to break your character's ability to do stuff about half the time.

----------


## Schwann145

Re: Exhaustion...

So I initially suggested Exhaustion because, as a mechanic, it basically slots into what I'd prefer for a "you keep getting almost dead" punishment nearly perfectly.
That said, I _don't_ think Exhaustion is particularly well-implemented in the game as it stands, and would adjust for that if I were to actually make the change!

For example:
Spend a HD on a Short Rest to recover 1 level of Exhaustion, one time.
Recover from say... Con mod levels Exhaustion on a Long Rest.
Add recovery of 1 level of Exhaustion to Lesser Restoration.
Add recovery of all Exhaustion to Greater Restoration.

The already-built spiral was the allure for me. The lack of reasonable recovery from said spiral was not, and is something I don't agree with.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## animorte

> The already-built spiral was the allure for me. The lack of reasonable recovery from said spiral was not, and is something I don't agree with.


Yes, I agree with all of this. If exhaustion is implemented, these are good ways to bring it back to normal. Ive been saying similar things and you put it together very nicely.

----------


## Kane0

So... we're back to page 3?

----------


## Arkhios

> So... we're back to page 3?


Let's go back to page 1, to the first post: "How do we fix the 5e healing?" We don't need to do that. Instead, the OP may need to fix their point of view.

5e healing works as intended. Period.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Mastikator

> Let's go back to page 1, to the first post: "How do we fix the 5e healing?" We don't need to do that. Instead, the OP may need to fix their point of view.
> 
> 5e healing works as intended. Period.


Yupp
/thread

----------


## Captain Cap

> Let's go back to page 1, to the first post: "How do we fix the 5e healing?" We don't need to do that. Instead, the OP may need to fix their point of view.
> 
> 5e healing works as intended. Period.


Something isn't necessarily good just because it's intended.

----------


## Segev

> Something isn't necessarily good just because it's intended.


Though, in this case, I think how it was intended to work is reasonably good design for the rest of the game that it was built to work in. 

If it is the fact that "you went down! Now you're up again and fine!?" that bothers people about pop-up healing, I actually think what they need is to make it so that being at 0 hp doesn't mean "you went down." Obviously, there should be some buffer zone between "down and out" and "dead," but expanding that by adding some small buffer zone at 0 hp where you're still up, and maybe suffering from a debilitating condition, but can be healed back to "fully functional" (by pop-up healing to 1 or more hp).

Ignoring 5.1 for a moment, you might make it so that being at 0 hp increases your effective exhaustion level by 1, and each death save you fail increases it by 2 further. Getting healed up from 0 to at least 1 hp wipes away all failed death saves, restoring your exhaustion level to whatever it was before you hit 0 hp. This removes the "you're unconscious" phase of being at 0 hp, without further modification, of course, since you're up and moving (albeit poorly) at all exhaustion levels above 6 (where you're dead). It also means being exhausted robs you of your death save buffer zone. 

There maybe other tools to use instead.

But the idea here is to leave a 0 hp target "up" and semi-functional until he's dead, or at least for enough of a buffer before "down" to solve the verisimilitude problem people have with the idea of pop-up healing. Now, you're healing the debilitating wounds that are slowing them down, not waking them up from unconsciousness.

----------


## Zuras

> Something isn't necessarily good just because it's intended.


Sure, but in this case what exactly is the issue?  5e nerfed or outright removed a bunch of stuff that stopped players from getting to play.  Is pop-up healing annoying?  Sure.  Is it better than sucking all the fun out of someones session because the DM rolled two crits in a row?  Also yes.

Death is honestly only an interesting consequence for DMs.  You kill a PC, and basically theyre just watching for the rest of the session.  Even if you just knock a PC unconscious, they dont get to play.  As a player, Im not salty for my character dying, Im salty because I blocked out time to play D&D, and now I dont get to play.

If you want consequences, add consequences, but they have to be fun ones, not something realistic that takes away player agency.

The simplest answer is to just use a meta-currency as the cost of death.  Every time a player is brought back during combat, the DM gets a point of inspiration, since the players keep tempting fate.  

Another possibility is to let in-combat healing work RAW, but apply long term consequences afterwards, once the adrenaline wears off.  They can be mechanical or narrative, depending on what works for your players, as long as theyre narratively funmaybe every failed death save is an actual concrete debt to the Raven Queen that needs to be paid off, or it allows an evil necromancer or death god to create a ghost simulacrum of the PCs to use against them.  

Theres a universe of possibilities, just dont use sorry, youre just watching for the rest of this session.

----------


## Segev

You'd want to structure the world such that either regeneration magic is available with a little questing (if not easily available), or prosthetics and the like are out there, but one of the things that D&D 5e introduced was the idea of "consequences for hitting 0 hp" from various kinds of enemies, and also the idea that hitting 0 hp would make you vulnerable to permanent injuries, even dismemberment.

Have some monsters and NPCs make the deliberate choice to - or have attacks that operate on the principle that - cut off limbs or poke out eyes or the like when they would otherwise reduce you to 0 hp. You don't take damage from a crippling attack if it would reduce you to 0 hp; instead, you lose a finger, an eye, a hand, a leg... something gets bitten or cut off or smashed to uselessness. This is a permanent injury. 

Now, for the same reason the crippling wounds rules are usually a bad idea, this is something to use with extreme caution and mindfulness in how you design your world. If there's a way to get a regeneration effect fairly reliably - even if not mid-combat, then it's probably fine. If there isn't, adventurers had better typically be like pirates in fiction: often with peg legs, weapon-hands, eye patches, and the like, because of all the permanent amputations they suffer. Or, if magical prosthetics are a thing, they should be fairly common amongst adventurers, for the same reason. With regen magic, you could make it something that takes 10 minutes to an hour to use so they can't recover mid-combat, but you don't want it to be long rest only, because then they'll stop adventuring the moment somebody loses a pinky.

But again, the main reason why "consequences" for going to 0 hp are so forgiving in 5e, and also why 5e healing "sucks" by being generally pretty low if you don't build for it, is because 5e is designed around keeping players able to participate in the game. That's why it's both working as intended and working well.

----------


## Arkhios

> Something isn't necessarily good just because it's intended.


"Good" or "Bad" is largely subjective.

----------


## Pex

> Re: Exhaustion...
> 
> So I initially suggested Exhaustion because, as a mechanic, it basically slots into what I'd prefer for a "you keep getting almost dead" punishment nearly perfectly.
> That said, I _don't_ think Exhaustion is particularly well-implemented in the game as it stands, and would adjust for that if I were to actually make the change!
> 
> For example:
> Spend a HD on a Short Rest to recover 1 level of Exhaustion, one time.
> Recover from say... Con mod levels Exhaustion on a Long Rest.
> Add recovery of 1 level of Exhaustion to Lesser Restoration.
> ...


That's the crust of the matter. Those ideas are fine. If they were the actual rules then I wouldn't have a problem with exhaustion. The problem isn't disadvantage on ability checks. It is disadvantage on ability checks for the rest of the day until next long rest.

----------


## Captain Cap

> "Good" or "Bad" is largely subjective.


Of course it is. But it's objectively true that the healing/hit points rules have room for improvement for some people, as this thread proves.

----------


## Schwann145

> Let's go back to page 1, to the first post: "How do we fix the 5e healing?" We don't need to do that. Instead, the OP may need to fix their point of view.
> 
> 5e healing works as intended. Period.


Healing may very well work perfectly well, as intended, mechanically as a way to keep player characters alive and participating in "gameplay."
However, as a narrative, thematic, storytelling, roleplaying tool, I find it to be an utter failure of design.

Considering D&D advertises itself in such a way that both mechanics _and_ thematics are important, it can't be "working as intended," unless "intended" intentionally leaves out half the game.  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Segev

> Healing may very well work perfectly well, as intended, mechanically as a way to keep player characters alive and participating in "gameplay."
> However, as a narrative, thematic, storytelling, roleplaying tool, I find it to be an utter failure of design.
> 
> Considering D&D advertises itself in such a way that both mechanics _and_ thematics are important, it can't be "working as intended," unless "intended" intentionally leaves out half the game.


The trouble is that the ways you deem it an utter failure are all subjective. In addition,  it seems it is less that healing is a failure at these things and more that you  assuming you share the opinions of others in this thread as to why "healing is a failure"  dislike pop-up healing being the optimal tactic that it is, and thus your issue is more with how being at 0 hp works.

If I am wrong, please do correct me. I have been trying to offer suggestions to solve the actual problem I perceive people as having based on what they're saying, but the lack of engagement on those suggestions probably means I still do not understand what the issue actually is.

----------


## sithlordnergal

> Healing may very well work perfectly well, as intended, mechanically as a way to keep player characters alive and participating in "gameplay."
> However, as a narrative, thematic, storytelling, roleplaying tool, I find it to be an utter failure of design.
> 
> Considering D&D advertises itself in such a way that both mechanics _and_ thematics are important, it can't be "working as intended," unless "intended" intentionally leaves out half the game.


I mean...It might be working as intended thematically. Now, I know it is a variant rule, but look at lingering injuries and how each injury can be healed. And yes, using a rule variant to explain a core experience isn't the greatest argument, but I think its worthwhile because it gives us some insight into how effective/powerful the designers felt magical healing is. Basically, they felt that 1 point of magical healing can fix just about anything. As long as its not poison, a disease, a lost limb, a scar, or Exhaustion, 1 point of magical healing fixes it.

Which means thematically? It makes perfect sense for Healing Word to instantly pick you back up. A single Good Berry can technically fix any broken bones, internal injuries, or lingering limps you might have after all.

----------


## Zuras

> Healing may very well work perfectly well, as intended, mechanically as a way to keep player characters alive and participating in "gameplay."
> However, as a narrative, thematic, storytelling, roleplaying tool, I find it to be an utter failure of design.
> 
> Considering D&D advertises itself in such a way that both mechanics _and_ thematics are important, it can't be "working as intended," unless "intended" intentionally leaves out half the game.


If it doesnt work for you, it doesnt.  That has little to do with whether the rules met the design goals.  Healing in D&D is generic in how it mechanically works, outside of the specifics of Hit Points and conditions.  If you want to take a more lore-focused approach youre welcome to it.

At the very least, however, you should understand that 5es healing setup is the result of intentional choices the designers believed would work for the majority of people.  

If you want to change things, be aware of the trade offs.  

Do you want to clarify the Hit Points vs Meat Points question?  You can, but that will add complexity.  

Do you want to make combat more consequential?  Incorporate lingering wounds, extra consequences for dropping to zero (as discussed in-thread and elsewhere), or cumulative death saves.  Again, these mechanics work, but many players find them un-fun, to the point that they were intentionally dropped from the game along the way from ODD to 5e because the realism or stakes added werent worth the amount of fun lost.  Your group may have a different opinionif character death was always bad, nobody would play Call of Cthulhu.  

Remember that as DM, you arent the one feeling the downsides.  Most of the characters you play dont last past a single scene and are constantly dying, but you get to make new ones constantly with near-complete freedom.  If you want more consequences in your games, I would lean towards things that give players more options (sanity damage, fate/plot points, etc) rather than fewer (making pop-up healing harder, lingering wounds that make PCs less effective).

----------


## Tanarii

It occurs to me that pop up healing is quite possibly the _most_ thematic and narratively time to heal. The last hit point is the only one where the metal is really meeting the meat.  Before that you're just healing some scratches, fatigue, luck, skill, and maybe divine providence.  But when you heal someone at 0hps, you're actually doing some serious healing of physical wounds that are in danger of causing them to bleed out.

----------


## Schwann145

> It occurs to me that pop up healing is quite possibly the _most_ thematic and narratively time to heal. The last hit point is the only one where the metal is really meeting the meat.  Before that you're just healing some scratches, fatigue, luck, skill, and maybe divine providence.  But when you heal someone at 0hps, you're actually doing some serious healing of physical wounds that are in danger of causing them to bleed out.


HP is never solidly defined by the game itself, so while this is a popular opinion, it's just that: an opinion.
A table that treats every HP of damage as just fatigue and scratches is equally correct as a table that treats every HP as a significant wound.

----------


## Captain Cap

> It occurs to me that pop up healing is quite possibly the _most_ thematic and narratively time to heal. The last hit point is the only one where the metal is really meeting the meat.  Before that you're just healing some scratches, fatigue, luck, skill, and maybe divine providence.  But when you heal someone at 0hps, you're actually doing some serious healing of physical wounds that are in danger of causing them to bleed out.


That would work really well in my opinion, if the 0 hp state didn't represent right away the unconscious/dying state. With the way hp behave, the status of a character is a binary on/off, and heals are the equivalent of a switch.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Death is honestly only an interesting consequence for DMs.  You kill a PC, and basically theyre just watching for the rest of the session.  Even if you just knock a PC unconscious, they dont get to play.  As a player, Im not salty for my character dying, Im salty because I blocked out time to play D&D, and now I dont get to play





> Remember that as DM, you arent the one feeling the downsides.  Most of the characters you play dont last past a single scene and are constantly dying, but you get to make new ones constantly with near-complete freedom.


Similarly, I do think it's worth noting that a character death (and the like) is an individually levied consequence of what's generally entire the party's decisions.

----------


## Segev

> That would work really well in my opinion, if the 0 hp state didn't represent right away the unconscious/dying state. With the way hp behave, the status of a character is a binary on/off, and heals are the equivalent of a switch.


The idea, if you subscribe to it, is that going to 0 hp is a devastating wound that knocks you out, at least temporarily,  and could be lethal. You're run through, or took a nasty head blow, or blacked out from having your leg nearly lopped off.

----------


## Zuras

> Similarly, I do think it's worth noting that a character death (and the like) is an individually levied consequence of what's generally entire the party's decisions.


Yeah.  I try to keep character death reserved for the D zone.  Dramatically appropriate or dumb choices only.

----------


## Kane0

Tell you what, it is kinda refreshing to just have PCs potentially die without fanfare though, sometimes the world telling you that your character isnt *that* special is good for tone

----------


## Zuras

> Tell you what, it is kinda refreshing to just have PCs potentially die without fanfare though, sometimes the world telling you that your character isnt *that* special is good for tone


I dunno about you, but anybody who gets four hours a week of my very limited free time dedicated to telling their lifes story is pretty special!

Do people commonly encounter issues with stakes feeling fake?  If so, does killing a PC or two to prove youll do it fix anything?  I hear it discussed a lot, but Ive never had issues with players not believing death or failure was possible if they made bad choices, wasted resources or had an extended run of really bad luck.  I will kill PCs without fanfare, but they always get an are you sure? beforehand.

----------


## Segev

> Do people commonly encounter issues with stakes feeling fake?


Speaking as somebody who first played 5e as a DM, from the DM's side of the screen, it can seem like you're not challenging your players at all. Combats are breezed through, then they heal up and have tons of resources left. But listening to my players, they would feel like they barely scraped by in the first fight of a day and that they almost died even though it was the ONLY fight in the day. 

Having since also played a lot on the plaeyr side of it, I personally don't feel as threatened as often as my friends do, but I still sometimes feel it, and my characters almost never hit 0 hp or run out of resources. But I feel the pinch on my dwindling resources, and I note the attrition the party is having, and it feels like we're scraping a lot closer to the edge of that cliff than we probably really are.

5e does, from a player's perspective, a good job of at least creating the illusion of far greater threat and risk than there really is or seems to be from the DM's side of the screen. At least, that's been my experience.




> If so, does killing a PC or two to prove youll do it fix anything?  I hear it discussed a lot, but Ive never had issues with players not believing death or failure was possible if they made bad choices, wasted resources or had an extended run of really bad luck.  I will kill PCs without fanfare, but they always get an are you sure? beforehand.


I have said this many times by now, but DMs will generally find their games improved if they can find ways to make the stakes not care if the PCs live or die. It's nontrivial, especially in pre-built adventures, but it's often feasible.

First off, remember that everyone - PC and NPC - has a reason they're involved in any conflict, especially combat. Killing the other side may well make it possible to pull off their goal, but it is rarely required unless the other side has decided they would rather die than let your goal be achieved. 

 You can have a literally invincible PC serving as a guard for a caravan, for example, and if his pay is contingent upon how much of the caravan reaches the destination, you can bet he'll feel every stolen item, every wagon that has to be abandoned due to loss of oxen or the like, and every dead merchant quite deeply. His stakes are the safety of that caravan, and the reward he gets for its safe arrival. His goal is to stop bandits from robbing it, wild beasts from depleting its oxen, and other such things. He doesn't need to be personally threatened - indeed, if he's invincible, he can't be - to make a fight to defend the caravan meaningful to him. To give it stakes.

----------


## Kane0

> I dunno about you, but anybody who gets four hours a week of my very limited free time dedicated to telling their lifes story is pretty special!
> 
> Do people commonly encounter issues with stakes feeling fake?  If so, does killing a PC or two to prove youll do it fix anything?  I hear it discussed a lot, but Ive never had issues with players not believing death or failure was possible if they made bad choices, wasted resources or had an extended run of really bad luck.  I will kill PCs without fanfare, but they always get an are you sure? beforehand.


Last campaign the party lost monk at level 1, warlock at level 7 which led to a sidequest to get a rez before he changed patron, warlock again as well as paladin at level 11 and barbarian and sorcerer at 12 over the course of the adventure. Only the monk stayed dead due to a lack of means to bring him back, and honestly thats the kind of lethality that felt right for the campaign. We were fighting mind flayers, beholders and their charmed minions from tier 2 onwards which escalated to the attention of Corellon, Ilsensine and the time-police from by tier 3 until we finished at the end of level 13. Quite a few times we could have been wiped too, considering the brain dragons and whatnot.
Lucky Rogue got through it all without even dropping to 0 once, and you could definitely tell he was taking things less seriously than the rest of us.

Edit: oh man, and the NPCs we lost along the way...

----------


## Arkhios

> I dunno about you, but anybody who gets four hours a week of my very limited free time dedicated to telling their lifes story is pretty special!


(Player Character) Death is part of the game. Both for the monsters slain and the players.

If it wasn't, why would we even calculate hit points or have rules for dying in the game?

If you don't like the possibility that a character you've written a novel for background even before starting the game might actually, suddenly and unexpectedly, die, maybe you should try some other game instead. Then again, we can't know for certain when we'll die, either, so make of it what you will.

----------


## Zuras

> (Player Character) Death is part of the game. Both for the monsters slain and the players.
> 
> If it wasn't, why would we even calculate hit points or have rules for dying in the game?
> 
> If you don't like the possibility that a character you've written a novel for background even before starting the game might actually, suddenly and unexpectedly, die, maybe you should try some other game instead. Then again, we can't know for certain when we'll die, either, so make of it what you will.


I keep hearing this argument, but I dont actually see any connection between the stakes of a game and ease of character death.  Paranoia has constant character death and pretty low stakes.  Players dont get too attached to their CoC characters either.

In my experience, narrative tension comes from believing the DM/GM is playing fair, and your choices actually matter for the outcome of the story.  If you dont think the DM is playing fair, does it really matter whether theyre fudging to ensure you succeed or to kill you?  I would say it doesnt, which indicates allowing character death is an entirely secondary to the fair play issue.

----------


## Tanarii

Yes the possibility and even occasional actual death matter.  Players need to see the link between the consequences and their actions while in a possibly lethal environment.

That doesn't mean the DM should go out of their way to kill PCs, either fudging or stacking the deck.   DMs should give them enough rope to hang themselves, and not go out of their way to fudge or stack the deck in their favor either.  There is no need. Dying is HARD in 5e, harder than any previous edition. 

For players to die, they have to make some poor decisions, the primary one being extended themselves long beyond an adventuring day, and the secondary one being challenging groups far beyond their ability to handle in a single battle, and the tertiary one being not scouting ahead and not having an escape plan (which lead to the other two).

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> I've been thinking about this, and I think the strength of the healing is pretty smart.  It provides another reason for short rests to recover and recharge short rest abilities.


Yep. 



> In my experience, Cure Wounds only gets used by Celestial Warlocks who have to upcast it anyway.  Its not bad, but its not a great use of a long rest slot.


 In my experience, Cure Wounds gets used a lot.  Heck, my level 14 paladin uses it now and again on other party members or NPCs if the lay on hands got used up.   



> Let's go back to page 1, to the first post: "How do we fix the 5e healing?" We don't need to do that. Instead, the OP may need to fix their point of view.
> 5e healing works as intended. Period.


 As I noted, fit for purpose. 




> Healing may very well work perfectly well, as intended, mechanically as a way to keep player characters alive and participating in "gameplay."
> However, as a narrative, thematic, storytelling, roleplaying tool, I find it to be an utter failure of design.


 Given that it's a _game_ that it was designed for, you seem to have just contradicted yourself.  :Small Confused: 



> Tell you what, it is kinda refreshing to just have PCs potentially die without fanfare though, sometimes the world telling you that your character isnt *that* special is good for tone


 Yep.  If a monster has three attacks (multi attack) and they attack the PC three times, hit three times, and the first hit was a crit that knocked the PC down to 0 HP (Yes, this happened in one of our campaigns in 2016) the next two hits with advantage/auto crit turn into a dead PC.  Seen this once. There is not 'in game' reason for the monster to stop the multiattack, since it is an action ... and we all at the table took that one as fair.  


> (Player Character) Death is part of the game.


 Yep.

----------


## Snails

In my recent gaming experience, I have had 4 or 5 PC near death events, that if the PC had died would have felt "satisfying", as there was an actual decisions(s) on my part that would have been significant contributing factors.  

My last actual PC death was in a 3e module.  Basically, there was an Assassin hiding in the room we entered, and he had the opportunity to get off one Death attack.  Well, my PC was targeted because "he was the wizard".  It so happens, though, that my PC had made significant investments in Spot, Initiative, Con, Fort, AC.  He was, in fact, the "hardest" target in the party when it comes to that kind of attack, by a significant margin, and if I had rolled a 10 or better on one of 4 rolls, the PC wizard would have survived to annihilate the Assassin before the rest of the party blinked.

This death was quite unsatisfying.  Even in hindsight, there was no reasonable decision I could have made to avoid that death.  I suppose that having a clearly communicated baseline lethality of "sometimes a meteor falls from the sky and obliterates a PC" is a message of a kind, but there is nothing for the players to do with that information except to accept it.  It does not add to the drama in any way, because I am not going to start trying to cleverly avoid deaths that are simply unavoidable.  

I agree with the gist of Tanarii's point.  In 5e, most PC deaths are the result of either pushing forward when the party was a bit depleted, or stubbornly sticking in against an enemy of unknown strength (and concocting the Escape Plan only _after_ you desperately need one).

I am for minor tweaks to have a bit less trampoline at the edge of consciousness (the houserule I am used to is it cost you an Action to come back to your senses after unconsciousness).  But do not think that in the big picture 5e healing itself is bad at all.  I prefer that the bulk of your PC's healing usually comes from the Hit Dice.

----------


## Schwann145

> Given that it's a _game_ that it was designed for, you seem to have just contradicted yourself.


The second half of my post addresses this. Why not include it in the quote?  :Small Confused:

----------


## Zuras

> Yes the possibility and even occasional actual death matter.  Players need to see the link between the consequences and their actions while in a possibly lethal environment.


I agree that the players need to know the DM is ready to kill their 5th level characters if they antagonize that ancient dragon, but that all hinges on communication far more than in-game mechanics of healing and death.

In practice, death is a pretty boring consequence when it actually happens.  Worse, character death in D&D is usually one player suffering for anothers actions.  Narrative logic is not karmic justice, and most of the time, the player who fs around is not the one who finds out.  Of the PC deaths Ive experienced as a player, 2/3 were from another player doing something stupid.  If the players are not on the same page regarding said stupidity, that is a major source of friction at the table.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> The second half of my post addresses this. Why not include it in the quote?


Your entire post is still right there in the thread, and the quotation with attribution feature provides a handy link that takes people to your comment.

Why should everyone have to scroll past the same text multiple times?

Perhaps you should restate or expand upon your point about how your view of thematics supposedly trumps all the other things it appears or they outright stated they were trying to do?

----------


## Tanarii

> I agree that the players need to know the DM is ready to kill [...]


DMs don't (or shouldn't) kill PCs.  Players are perfectly capable of getting their own PCs killed.  Especially if you're not running a Linear adventure tailored for a PC level (often called a 'sandbox' even if it isn't), or even a open table campaign sandbox. And even then, all tailored adventures really removes is the need to research and scout to make sure your not overmatched, unless resting is forced by the DM (or house-ruled to move it to being an abstract thing not tied to in game time & safety).

A more common problem IMO is DMs being willing to fudge or otherwise finagle things to _save_ PCs from death.  I won't play with a DM who does that. I'm especially annoyed if they try to hide it, thinking we won't notice. I want the agency to get my character killed!  :Small Amused:

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> DMs don't (or shouldn't) kill PCs.  Players are perfectly capable of getting their own PCs killed.


 Yep. The bard (Me DM) nearly self killed by DDing past a wall of force, only to face a mind flayer who stunned him with that psychic thing.   A conjured earth (allied caster used last level 5 slot) elemental 'earth swam' underground past the wall of force and was able to pitch in until the stun wore off. 



> A more common problem IMO is DMs being willing to fudge or otherwise finagle things to _save_ PCs from death.  I won't play with a DM who does that. I'm especially annoyed if they try to hide it, thinking we won't notice. I want the agency to get my character killed!


 Yes.  Let the Players get in over their heads and die.  There are the dice, roll up a new one ...  :Small Smile:  ... (or, do a better job of team play and get out with their skins!)

----------


## Zuras

> Yes.  Let the Players get in over their heads and die.  There are the dice, roll up a new one ...  ... (or, do a better job of team play and get out with their skins!)


Lots of people like a combat-as-war, let the chips fall where they may game, and the healing & death rules as written make this a little more survivable and forgiving.  In my experience, however, any time the DM starts playing this style of game it causes more issues than it resolves unless the whole table is on the same page.

If good teamwork and effective play is required to win battles, experienced players are far more tempted to try and run other players characters or criticize them for making sub-optimal plays.  If one players Its what my character would do moment leads to another PCs death, thats a very real source of OOC tension.  Some of my worst pick-up game D&D experiences have been at tables where the DM expected smart tactical play and only half the players were on board with it.

Its like spicy food.  If you put ghost peppers in every dish, some people will really like it but youll have a much more limited clientele.

----------


## Segev

It's also worth noting that, past level 5, death need not be permanent in many cases. No need to pull the punch when you can cast _resurrection_.

One of the things that I only just now am thinking about, but find interesting is that a lot of DMs I've seen who say, "resurrection magic is rare/doesn't exist in my setting, because I want death to have bite," then go out of their way not to kill off PCs. I think just leaning in to the existence of resurrection magic as a tool to recover dead PCs - spurring adventure at lower level, maybe with a temp PC for the player whose character is dead, as they quest for the ability to bring their friend back - is probably a good move.

----------


## KorvinStarmast

> Lots of people like a combat-as-war, let the chips fall where they may game, and the healing & death rules as written _make this a little more survivable and forgiving._


Correct. 


> In my experience, however, any time the DM starts playing this style of game it causes more issues than it resolves unless the whole table is on the same page.


 It is on the players to get on the same page.  


> If one players Its what my character would do moment leads to another PCs death, thats a very real source of OOC tension.


  If that player doesn't take the concept of combat being deadly,_ even though the PCs do a lot of killing,_ that player needs a tap with a clue bat.  



> Some of my worst pick-up game D&D experiences have been at tables where the DM expected smart tactical play and only half the players were on board with it.


Indeed.  I recently dropped out of a group for similar reasons.  
Low player skill is a drag to deal with, same is true in a pick up basketball game or a golf scramble. 



> Its like spicy food.  If you put ghost peppers in every dish, some people will really like it but youll have a much more limited clientele.


 Ghost peppers are not "spicy food" they are "over the top hot pepper masochists have their version of fun".  :Small Yuk: 
Jalapenos, serranos, hananeros are in spicy food, as are various chilis and curries, etc.   



> It's also worth noting that, past level 5, death need not be permanent in many cases. No need to pull the punch when you can cast _resurrection_.


 How about a little attention to detail here? 
_Revivify_ is at level 5. 
_Raise dead_ is at earliest level 9 (level 5 spell) . 
_Resurrection_ comes at level 13, it is a level 7 spell. 

If they want death to have bite, they can use reincarnation.  :Small Smile:

----------


## animorte

> It is on the players to get on the same page.


As long as the reality has been communicated in session zero, then this is fair. 




> If that player doesn't take the concept of combat being deadly,_ even though the PCs do a lot of killing,_ that player needs a tap with a clue bat.


 :Small Big Grin:  Haha, well said.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> How about a little attention to detail here? 
> _Revivify_ is at level 5. 
> _Raise dead_ is at earliest level 9 (level 5 spell) . 
> _Resurrection_ comes at level 13, it is a level 7 spell.


And those spells aren't exactly widely available and have expensive consumables:

Revivify is cleric/paladin[1]/artificer[1] + wildfire druid + celestial warlock. And only the latter 2 are guaranteed to have it ready--can't prep it later since it has a very limited window. This also disqualifies it for NPCs.

Raise dead is bard/cleric/paladin[2] + alchemist artificer[2].

Reincarnation is druid only (modulo Magical Secrets).

Resurrection is bard/cleric only.

So the only chance you have of getting access to these is having a cleric in the party. You can get away with a paladin, but it's both delayed AND they only have access to the lower two spells. Neither of which do much for things like a crit _extract brain_ from a mind flayer.

[1] And 3rd level spells for half-casters mean it comes on in late T2 (9th level)
[2 And 5th level spells for half-casters mean T4 access only.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> [Run-down of a bunch of "R" spells for the dead]


All that said, isn't Gentle Repose 2nd-level, cheap, on the lists for Clerics, Paladins (TCoE) and Wizards, and time constraint pausing for a full 10 days?

----------


## Dork_Forge

> And those spells aren't exactly widely available and have expensive consumables:
> 
> Revivify is cleric/paladin[1]/artificer[1] + wildfire druid + celestial warlock. And only the latter 2 are guaranteed to have it ready--can't prep it later since it has a very limited window. This also disqualifies it for NPCs.
> 
> Raise dead is bard/cleric/paladin[2] + alchemist artificer[2].
> 
> Reincarnation is druid only (modulo Magical Secrets).
> 
> Resurrection is bard/cleric only.
> ...


Just for completeness there's also the Mercy Monk's ability that acts as a Rez, but otherwise I agree.




> All that said, isn't Gentle Repose 2nd-level, cheap, on the lists for Clerics, Paladins (TCoE) and Wizards, and time constraint pausing for a full 10 days?


Yes, but that requires you to have that spell prepared and doesn't really negate much (if anything) PP said. Gentle Repose is a nice extension to your time limit, but that doesn't make Rez magic more common or less costly and keeping the spell around eats a prep slot that you'd only ever use in case of PC death.

----------


## Reach Weapon

> Yes, but that requires you to have that spell prepared and doesn't really negate much (if anything) PP said.


I was under the impression I was expanding not negating.

Still, I guess I hadn't really thought of Gentle Repose as a spell prep cost, as in any campaign long enough to be worth considering bringing the dead back, any Cleric I'd be playing would soon have more direct options, and the Wizards, (Tome) Warlocks and Ritual Caster (feat) characters who would tend to use it, have a different mechanic and cost.

----------

