D&D 5E Healing, range and action economy

[S'mon]

In a way, rules are the de facto laws of physics for an RPG world. Of course, it depends on how consistently those rules are applied. 5e encourages rulings over rules and DM empowerment, so the DM who makes many off the cuff rulings can really undermine the rule-as-laws-of-physic conceit, much the the consternation of players like Saelorn. It's a little like 4e, that way, in that in 4e rules, though clear and consistent, were decoupled from 'fluff.' Conversely, in the RAW-uber-alles zeitgiest of 3.x, rules were very much the laws of physics.

Only in comedy like Order of the Stick, and a few GMs who treated their worlds like OoTS.
Outside of that, people in (eg) Greyhawk could break bones and suffer lingering injuries, despite the lack of rules for it. RPG game rules are no more the physics of a world than any other sorts of
game rules. I don't think anyone claims the rules of Advanced Squad Leader are the
"Physics of the ASL world"; I'm not sure why this happens with RPGs - it never happened
before 3e D&D (& AFAIK no one has ever claimed the rules of Call of Cthulu were the
'physics of the CoC world'), so I think it must be something to do with the presentation of the 3e rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Only in comedy like Order of the Stick, and a few GMs who treated their worlds like OoTS.
Outside of that, people in (eg) Greyhawk could break bones and suffer lingering injuries, despite the lack of rules for it. RPG game rules are no more the physics of a world than any other sorts of game rules.

They're the physics of the world as the players experience them through their PCs, at a minimum.

Whether the game promotes a consistency between the rules that PCs play by and the rules that NPCs theoretically play by 'off screen' makes a big difference. 3.x /did/ promote that idea that PCs and NPCs 'played by the same rules,' for instance. So did games like RuneQuest.

I don't think anyone claims the rules of Advanced Squad Leader are the
"Physics of the ASL world";

The idea seems sillier in games that purport to model the real world.

I'm not sure why this happens with RPGs - it never happened
before 3e D&D (& AFAIK no one has ever claimed the rules of Call of Cthulu were the
'physics of the CoC world'), so I think it must be something to do with the presentation of the 3e rules.

It's much older than 3e. The idea that the way a rule was interpreted would impact the world of the setting is one I recall coming up in discussions from the very beginning of my involvement with the hobby, c1980. I definitely remember using the 'laws of physics' analogy on UseNet in the 90s.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Only in comedy like Order of the Stick, and a few GMs who treated their worlds like OoTS.
Outside of that, people in (eg) Greyhawk could break bones and suffer lingering injuries, despite the lack of rules for it. RPG game rules are no more the physics of a world than any other sorts of
game rules.

The rules of the game reflect the reality of the game world, for as long as the assumptions (under which those rules were made) remain valid. Hence, you might be able to slit someone's throat and bypass their HP if you break the assumption of combat. The further you deviate from the assumptions, the more likely you are that the rules stop applying.

Of course, outside of the rules is uncharted territory. We have no idea what might happen out there, aside from whatever the DM thinks should happen, which can be hard to predict. Thus, it is in the best interests of the players for the rules to make as few assumptions as possible.

 

[practicalm]

Personally, I think the DM should roll death saving throws and keep them secret from all the players (including the dying PC) thus preventing the meta gaming that often takes place where clerics can forgo casting a Spare the Dying cantrip or healing spell because they "know" that the dying PC has made two death saving throws and not failed any yet.

I definitely can see that. But it's also interesting to watch what happens to a player that has failed two death saves as they try to convince someone at the table to come to their rescue. It puts an interesting pressure on the tactics of the players.

If I wasn't running a table with some younger kids, I definitely agree having them in secret make them more scary.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is how I would have understood it.

To gain maximum healing, you need to:
1) spend your action
2) close to touch range

If either or neither of those two things are true, you can still heal, but with roughly half effect for each lacking criteria. That is:
a) if you only spend a bonus action, you get half healing
b) if you heal at range, you get half healing
but
c) if you use a bonus action to heal at range, you get quarter healing

But this isn't true.

Is it just me, or do Healing Word give incredible bang for the buck?

Well, your percentages are off a bit, and it depends on what you mean for "bang for the buck". If you mean a high percentage of Cure Wounds healing without the limitations, then yes, it can be viewed that way.

But to gain "maximum healing", the caster has to be casting the spell in his highest level slot.

I view Healing Word and Cure Wounds as per the following. Say that you have a healer PC that can cast these spells and look at the highest level slot that the healer PC can cast that spell in (primary caster) on a PC with a Con of 14 (and no special feats to boost hit points). Say also that this healer does not take feats, but boosts primary stat at levels 4 and 8. The percentage of hit points healed for other PCs (class dependent) is fairly close to what it was at first level.

Lvl  HW   CW   HW Percent  CW Percent  HW/CW Ratio
 1:  5.5  7.5  39% to 69%  54% to 94%  72% to 73%
 3:  8.0 12.0  35% to 57%  52% to 86%  67% to 66%
 5: 11.5 17.5  36% to 58%  55% to 88%  65% to 66%
 7: 14.0 22.0  34% to 54%  54% to 85%  63% to 64%
 9: 17.5 27.5  35% to 55%  55% to 86%  64% to 64%
11: 20.0 32.0  34% to 53%  54% to 84%  63% to 63%
13: 22.5 36.5  33% to 51%  54% to 83%  61% to 61%
15: 25.0 41.0  32% to 50%  53% to 82%  60% to 61%
17: 27.5 45.5  32% to 49%  53% to 81%  60% to 60%

Healing Words heals a higher percentage of Cure Wounds healing at lower levels, but Cure Wounds starts getting slightly better bang for the buck (compared to Healing Word) later on. It might just make sense to use Cure Wounds at the end of a battle at high level, just to get those extra 40% more hit points (and even at low level for 27% more).


But, the first problem that comes in is that PCs are unwilling to cast healing spells in their highest level slots at higher levels as much as they were at first level (where it tends to be somewhat limited as well). So this means that the efficiency of Healing Word and Cure Wounds healing spells (with the exception of Mass healing spells and the Heal spell and such greater spell effects) get even worse as PCs level up. It gets more worse with feats and PCs that take Con stat boosts.

 

[77IM]

The best use of cure wounds is when the cleric needs to heal him/herself, frequently burning a higher-level slot to optimize the action expenditure.

 

[CapnZapp]

My take from this is (feel free to point out if you believe I have missed or skipped something) :

Healing Word is fine. Probably great, but not so overpowered the game needs to nerf it.

Cure Wounds needs help. As an in combat spell, mind you. It appears to me a good suggestion for a CW house rule would be to increase the oomph of overleveling the spell, but not to change the baseline (the spell as cast using a level 1 slot).

What I really was fishing for, however, was to see if there was design space wide enough for a third basic healing spell, either the
Bonus action, touch range
Or the
Action, at range
Hypothetical spell, to complement the existing ones.

Bonus action, range (this is healing word) and action, touch (this is cure wounds).

Perhaps the best houserule would be to simply switch the range of the existing two spells.

That is, healing word requires touch, while cure wounds get range. Would this make them more equal, in the sense that equal means "both are actually used in combat".

Thoughts?

 

[S'mon]

I think I'm ok with cure wounds being the out-of-combat spell and healing word the in-combat spell.

 

[DaveDash]

My take from this is (feel free to point out if you believe I have missed or skipped something) :

Healing Word is fine. Probably great, but not so overpowered the game needs to nerf it.

Cure Wounds needs help. As an in combat spell, mind you. It appears to me a good suggestion for a CW house rule would be to increase the oomph of overleveling the spell, but not to change the baseline (the spell as cast using a level 1 slot).

What I really was fishing for, however, was to see if there was design space wide enough for a third basic healing spell, either the
Bonus action, touch range
Or the
Action, at range
Hypothetical spell, to complement the existing ones.

Bonus action, range (this is healing word) and action, touch (this is cure wounds).

Perhaps the best houserule would be to simply switch the range of the existing two spells.

That is, healing word requires touch, while cure wounds get range. Would this make them more equal, in the sense that equal means "both are actually used in combat".

Thoughts?

I have a player building a Favored Soul where his go-to healing is going to be Cure Wounds + Distant Spell. It's still an action, but it is at range at least.

 

[Thyrwyn]

If you are more concerned with healing, you cast Cure Wounds; if you are more concerned with doing something else, you cast Healing Word. Reversing the ranges completely negates the point of Healing Word. If you have to move to cast it, you probably have nothing worthwhile to do with your action, except Dodge or Disengage so you could get there. Meanwhile, if you can cast Cure Wounds at Range, you have nothing worthwhile to use a bonus action for. Reversing the ranges turns the Cleric into a support character, especially given the brevity of 5e combats.