D&D 5E In-Combat Healing: How and Why?

FrogReaver said:

In that case I think my proposed in-combat healing tactics definitely minimize actions lost due to adverse conditions such as unconsciousness.

Click to expand...

I was talking about how I rate success. As you said, that's the important part to determine to you are meeting your goal.

FrogReaver said:

You assume that the ally fell just before your turn. It's also possible that he fell right after his turn was over. If that's the case all enemies going between him and you have the potential to finish him off. Unlikely perhaps but still a possibility. If he is killed before your clerics turn comes around then it's not true that he can always be stood back up and act, even provided no enemy goes between the cleric and him.

Click to expand...

This is a place where having a different goal leads to different tactics. With most of the DMs I've played with, it is quite hard for a character to be killed in one round. Between mostly only hit with area of effect, with others havign abilities to heal as well, and with the general resilience of PCs, it's a very rare occurrence. And someone dying is 2-3 actions lost anyway, then a Revivify. Optimizing to save 2-3 actions that occur very rarely over optimizing to save 1 action regularly is a failure for my goal.

Death is rare, with resources being devoted to in-combat healing (as opposed to just standing someone up when they fall) it's even rarer, and once you hit Tier 2 the effect of death on a combat is around the impact of failing a save to other debuffs.

Heck, it could potentially even be done on the battlefield, though standing someone up to 1 HP is just asking for them to be knocked unconcious again.

Now, death has a wonderful RP impact, and Revivify has a heavy material component cost - those are very true. Personally, I learned gaming back with AD&D and spells to raised the dead would do things like chance of permanent death based on CON, and permanent CON loss. A 3rd level get-out-of-death-free spell cheapens it for me, but absent character motivations of not-wanting-to-die! as a player I'll acknowledge the tactical change it makes.

At many tables death happens rarely enough that it's better to prioritize your healing resources in order to minimize offensive actions lost (to kill the opponent quicker and reducing the chance of death) rather than spending actions overhealing to prevent it from happening.

LordEntrails said:

Yes, at a table with pencil and paper. With digital tools, specifically FG, it is easy to turn on re-rolls and not worry about it.

Re-roll init also has other benefits too. Esp. along the lines of limiting metagaming and enhancing the chaos of combat.

Click to expand...

5e is designed around each and every other person in an encounter having exactly one action between your actions. (With some epic creatures that are supposed to act as multiple creatures breaking that).

When both PCs and foes have abilities and spells that last until the start of your turn and could have no affect not because you did anything wrong, but because you rolled better on initiative, there's a big problem. One reaction suddenly can become a lot less effective. Or a lot more.

Rerolling initiative every round messes up every one of those assumptions, invalidating the design. They could have designed differently if they were having a variable initiative, but it wouldn't have been as streamlined.

And it doesn't "even out", because creatures die. The fact that something occasionally lasts longer will have less impact because a chunk of the time the target isn't there. But when it works shorter the target usually still is. Since the party generally has a lot more features and spell then their opposition, this unbalance is generally against the party.

In order for rerolling every round not to break 5e pretty badly, you'll need to rework all things that are supposed to last a round, from reaction to spells. It won't be as streamlined, but it will support your needs.

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION]

Forgive me, but I need to reorder your comments to make a point

At many tables death happens rarely enough that it's better to prioritize your healing resources in order to minimize offensive actions lost (to kill the opponent quicker and reducing the chance of death) rather than spending actions overhealing to prevent it from happening.​

Click to expand...

1. Death is rare. Agreed.
2. You suggest we should minimize offensive actions lost. Why do you suggest that? To reduce chance of death.

-I partly agree. We want to reduce the chance of death.

-However, I contend that if death is so rare that healing (using my tactics) isn't worthwhile then death is also so rare that trying to minimize offensive actions lost in order to reduce chance of death isn't worthwhile. But since you agree that reducing the already small chance of death by minimizing offensive action lost is actually worthwhile then you should also agree that minimizing the small chance of death by healing (using my tactics) is also worthwhile.

This is a place where having a different goal leads to different tactics. With most of the DMs I've played with, it is quite hard for a character to be killed in one round. Between mostly only hit with area of effect, with others havign abilities to heal as well, and with the general resilience of PCs, it's a very rare occurrence. And someone dying is 2-3 actions lost anyway, then a Revivify. Optimizing to save 2-3 actions that occur very rarely over optimizing to save 1 action regularly is a failure for my goal.
​

Click to expand...

So my first question is what purpose does the goal of "minimizing offensive combat actions lost" actually serve? Why should anyone want to have that goal?

Compare that to my goal of "reduce chance of death" which is self-explanatory as to why someone would want this goal.

What I believe is going on is that your actual goal is "reducing chance of death" and that "minimizing offensive combat actions lost" is simply the strategy you are using to attempt to achieve that goal. I think you are confusing your strategy with the goal that strategy is fulfilling. That's why you referred back to reducing chance of death in your last paragraph, because that's what you are achieving by following the strategy of "minimize offensive combat actions lost".

If I'm wrong then please tell me why should anyone care about the goal of "minimizing offensive combat actions lost"?

Blue said:

5e is designed around each and every other person in an encounter having exactly one action between your actions. (With some epic creatures that are supposed to act as multiple creatures breaking that).

Click to expand...

Says you. Funny how re-roll initiative is one of the optional rules listed int he DMG.

When both PCs and foes have abilities and spells that last until the start of your turn and could have no affect not because you did anything wrong, but because you rolled better on initiative, there's a big problem. One reaction suddenly can become a lot less effective. Or a lot more.

Click to expand...

Sure, combat is chaotic.

Rerolling initiative every round messes up every one of those assumptions, invalidating the design. They could have designed differently if they were having a variable initiative, but it wouldn't have been as streamlined.

Click to expand...

No, no it does not mess up anything except your assumptions and expectations. It doesn't break anything in the rules themselves.

And it doesn't "even out", because creatures die. The fact that something occasionally lasts longer will have less impact because a chunk of the time the target isn't there. But when it works shorter the target usually still is. Since the party generally has a lot more features and spell then their opposition, this unbalance is generally against the party.

Click to expand...

Umm, really? You are worried about something that might have a 1% impact over a statistically large sample? Besides, don't people usually complain around here that fights are not tough enough on the party? So IF it swings against them a tiny bit, that should be a good thing. Not something to worry about.

In order for rerolling every round not to break 5e pretty badly, you'll need to rework all things that are supposed to last a round, from reaction to spells. It won't be as streamlined, but it will support your needs.

Click to expand...

Uh, except the game designers apparently disagree with you. You know, since its actually an optional rule. And no, it doesn't break anything. You could do what we do and use the initiative count for spell durations, but you could stick with them as you describe. The impact really isn't what you think it is.

How about you go run a couple of sessions with initiative re-roll (and a positive attitude) and see what you really think of it. Don't bother worrying about some theoreticals. Re-roll has a significant impact on the fun at our table, we really could care less about any trivial mechanical impacts it might have. (Because they truly are trivial, and our fun is not.)

FrogReaver said:

[MENTION=20564]Blue[/MENTION]

Forgive me, but I need to reorder your comments to make a point

1. Death is rare. Agreed.
2. You suggest we should minimize offensive actions lost. Why do you suggest that? To reduce chance of death.

-I partly agree. We want to reduce the chance of death.

-However, I contend that if death is so rare that healing (using my tactics) isn't worthwhile then death is also so rare that trying to minimize offensive actions lost in order to reduce chance of death isn't worthwhile. But since you agree that reducing the already small chance of death by minimizing offensive action lost is actually worthwhile then you should also agree that minimizing the small chance of death by healing (using my tactics) is also worthwhile.



So my first question is what purpose does the goal of "minimizing offensive combat actions lost" actually serve? Why should anyone want to have that goal?

Compare that to my goal of "reduce chance of death" which is self-explanatory as to why someone would want this goal.

What I believe is going on is that your actual goal is "reducing chance of death" and that "minimizing offensive combat actions lost" is simply the strategy you are using to attempt to achieve that goal. I think you are confusing your strategy with the goal that strategy is fulfilling. That's why you referred back to reducing chance of death in your last paragraph, because that's what you are achieving by following the strategy of "minimize offensive combat actions lost".

If I'm wrong then please tell me why should anyone care about the goal of "minimizing offensive combat actions lost"?

Click to expand...

All is good, you're very respectful in our discussion.

Okay, let's try it like this.

Death is just another condition, curable during or after combat once a party can cast Revivify. Just like a Dispel Magic (another 3rd level spell) might end some other condition. It's best to avoid, but doesn't need to be focused around unless the costly material components are a problem. As it is, it either requires a very large single hit, or it requires three failed death saves (time and/pr additional damage done once down).

The exception of that is a chicken-and-the-egg issue - you need to make sure that your last (usually only) character that can revivify doesn't die.

But outside that caveat, what is the point of in-combat healing? Well conditions, especially unconsciousness, can cost actions. Lose every character's action and you've lost the battle. So the goal of in-combat healing needs to be to reduce that loss. Death, frankly, doesn't reduce actions any more than unconsciousness does.

So both of our goals are to use reasonably sized heals to keep people up and fighting. It's just a different priority on who to heal. For example, a character that goes after the cleric without any foes between them can be stood up if they fall in a very efficient manner without loss of action. So I would prioritize healing another character, perhaps one that you would not because they aren't as close to dropping. Or possibly the healer themself.

Blue said:

All is good, you're very respectful in our discussion.

Okay, let's try it like this.

Death is just another condition, curable during or after combat once a party can cast Revivify. Just like a Dispel Magic (another 3rd level spell) might end some other condition. It's best to avoid, but doesn't need to be focused around unless the costly material components are a problem. As it is, it either requires a very large single hit, or it requires three failed death saves (time and/pr additional damage done once down).

The exception of that is a chicken-and-the-egg issue - you need to make sure that your last (usually only) character that can revivify doesn't die.

But outside that caveat, what is the point of in-combat healing? Well conditions, especially unconsciousness, can cost actions. Lose every character's action and you've lost the battle. So the goal of in-combat healing needs to be to reduce that loss. Death, frankly, doesn't reduce actions any more than unconsciousness does.

Click to expand...

I see, essentially you are not worried about individual PC death because it's easily overcome, but you are worried about a total party kill scenario. So that's the actual goal that your minimize lost actions strategy is trying to accomplish. I understand now.

So both of our goals are to use reasonably sized heals to keep people up and fighting.

Click to expand...

Well now that we have been able to identify your actual goal I agree.

It's just a different priority on who to heal. For example, a character that goes after the cleric without any foes between them can be stood up if they fall in a very efficient manner without loss of action. So I would prioritize healing another character, perhaps one that you would not because they aren't as close to dropping. Or possibly the healer themself.

Click to expand...

If I had to choose between two targets that need healed right now then I like your tactic. It's solid.

But getting down to it, it's going to be particularly rare using my strategy to have 2 PC's that need healed on the same turn. So how does your strategy play out in the situation where only 1 PC needs healed. I presume your tactic is still to let them drop if the turn order falls in your favor.

So you will presumably be casting a cantrip for 2d8 damage (none on a miss / successful save). There's about a 1 in a quadrillion chance that your small cantrip amount of damage on the turn I chose to heal is going to prevent a TPK and another 1 in a quadrillion chance that it would prevent a TPK that my heal wouldn't also have prevented.

As [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has pointed out, the big savings is potentially saving the higher level slot for later. That's a discussion I can get aboard, But your current argument that healing in combat is going to lead to more TPK's than not - because of lost actions isn't very compelling. IMO. If using a large slot in combat for healing leads to more TPK's to any meaningful degree then it's going to be because you didn't use the higher level slot on a spell that would have prevented the TPK.

Scenario 1: You may have saved saved your high level slot for healing, used the slot in the fight for healing and still ended up in a TPK situation whereas some small unknown percentage of the time using a different spell earlier in the fight may have prevented the TPK

Scenario 2: You may have used your high level slot for healing in an earlier fight that had no chance of resulting in a TPK. While the additional hp will cause a small advantage in the next few fights there's still the case where you have a TPK later in the day that if you had saved the slot and not healed that you could use it on something that would have prevented the TPK.

Then there's also similar scenarios where using the healing spell ended up preventing the TPK but using some other spell caused it. I'm not sure we can adequately assess which of these kinds of scenarios is more likely to occur.

Reserving a high level slot is great general advice. Not necessarily with the expectation for healing, but with the expectation it's being reserved for one of those "oh crap" moments that can happen. Reserving potential for when it's really needed is specific to healers but if it's available a solid in combat heal can be important.

Having it doesn't mean it's going to be used for in-combat healing, however. Out-of-combat healing options still tend to be more cost effective and using the same slots to mitigate damage generally saves more hit points in damage than the spell would have healed. Casting a healing spell in combat that could have been taken after the combat also nets a lost action for the caster so it only improves the combat actions if the healing gives the healed target more actions that would have been lost than the one the cleric does lose.

Let's face it. A 1st level spell the prevents attacks like Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Command or Entangle in a 1st level slot is going to prevent more damage from an Ogre than Cure Wounds in a 1st or 2nd level (until +4 bonus) slot even if it prevents only a single attack. Mass action denial is even more effective than healing using the same spell slots. Or go with defensive spells like Sactuary or Protection from Elements.

Given a choice in combat, I'm always going to go for what's effective, efficient, or necessary at the time and balancing that out with resource management over time. I find healing in combat something that may be required at times but it's a lower priority than preventing damage in the first place, which is where I see the best use for the actions and spell slots in combat.

Ashrym said:

Reserving a high level slot is great general advice. Not necessarily with the expectation for healing, but with the expectation it's being reserved for one of those "oh crap" moments that can happen. Reserving potential for when it's really needed is specific to healers but if it's available a solid in combat heal can be important.

Having it doesn't mean it's going to be used for in-combat healing, however. Out-of-combat healing options still tend to be more cost effective and using the same slots to mitigate damage generally saves more hit points in damage than the spell would have healed. Casting a healing spell in combat that could have been taken after the combat also nets a lost action for the caster so it only improves the combat actions if the healing gives the healed target more actions that would have been lost than the one the cleric does lose.

Let's face it. A 1st level spell the prevents attacks like Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Command or Entangle in a 1st level slot is going to prevent more damage from an Ogre than Cure Wounds in a 1st or 2nd level (until +4 bonus) slot even if it prevents only a single attack. Mass action denial is even more effective than healing using the same spell slots. Or go with defensive spells like Sactuary or Protection from Elements.

Given a choice in combat, I'm always going to go for what's effective, efficient, or necessary at the time and balancing that out with resource management over time. I find healing in combat something that may be required at times but it's a lower priority than preventing damage in the first place, which is where I see the best use for the actions and spell slots in combat.

Click to expand...

While I agree with this, it it useful to add that this in no way means in-combat healing is bad or wrong in any way.

All it means is that the designers have deliberately toned down the feature to the point of practically removing it.

Restore healing power to 3E levels and the quoted analysis will change.

PS This procedure is not hard at all. Just double the hit point gain from any healing spell and you are back to d20 levels, and you will find the usefulness of casting a Cure Wounds spell during combat greatly increased!

Ashrym said:

Reserving a high level slot is great general advice. Not necessarily with the expectation for healing, but with the expectation it's being reserved for one of those "oh crap" moments that can happen. Reserving potential for when it's really needed is specific to healers but if it's available a solid in combat heal can be important.

Click to expand...

Agreed

Having it doesn't mean it's going to be used for in-combat healing, however. Out-of-combat healing options still tend to be more cost effective and using the same slots to mitigate damage generally saves more hit points in damage than the spell would have healed. Casting a healing spell in combat that could have been taken after the combat also nets a lost action for the caster so it only improves the combat actions if the healing gives the healed target more actions that would have been lost than the one the cleric does lose.

Click to expand...

This is only part of the picture. Out of combat healing also competes against short rest hit die healing. So while, you may could heal more overall with an out of combat healing spell, that healing could likely have been accomplished without spending a single spell slot. If that's the case then using spell slots for out of combat healing is inefficient.

Now in situations where hit die healing is unavailable then it can make sense to spend a lower level slot on something like prayer of healing, but the general rule should be that out of combat healing spells are the exception, not the rule.

Let's face it. A 1st level spell the prevents attacks like Tasha's Hideous Laughter or Command or Entangle in a 1st level slot is going to prevent more damage from an Ogre than Cure Wounds in a 1st or 2nd level (until +4 bonus) slot even if it prevents only a single attack. Mass action denial is even more effective than healing using the same spell slots. Or go with defensive spells like Sactuary or Protection from Elements.

Click to expand...

The downside is that action denial concentration spells must be cast at the start of the fight before knowing just how the fight is going. So let's look at the ogre example. Let's say his target is the 18 AC fighter with 20 hp. With his 6 attack he has a 55% chance to do 2d8+4 damage.

Tasha's has an amazingly high chance of success 70%
Entangle has an amazingly low chance of success 40%

I'm going to split the difference down the middle to estimate the average control spell will have 55% chance of success.

Now we have a lot of cases to consider:

Case 1: The depuff works every turn in the encounter leaving the ogre action less
Chance of occurrence: 17%
Chance ogre would have missed all attacks anyways 9%
Chance ogre would have hit with 1 attack 33%
Chance ogre would have hit with 2 attacks 41%
Chance ogre would have hit with 3 attacks 17%

1.66 healing spells used vs 1 control spell used
-----------------------------------------------------------

This case results in an average of 1.66 heal spells being used to the 1 controllers spell

The debuffer in this case will use a healing spell when the ally is hit (this way I can compare apples to apples - number of spells used for the same result)

This would be 1.66 heal spells to the 1.55 debuffer spell


Case 3: The bebuff works only on the first turn leaving the ogre 2 actions
Chance of occurrence 25%
Chance Ogre hits with exactly 1 of his remaining attacks = 49.5%
Chance Ogre hits with both of his remaining attacks = 30.25%

Using the same logic of healing when the ogre hits.
1.66 healing spells used vs 2.1 control spells used


1.66 heal spells vs 2.6 control spells used



Weighting the averages
1.66 average heal spells used vs 2.08 average control spells used (for same effect).

(Not accounting for the extra cantrip attack the healer always gets on the first turn since no one needs healed then, or the extra cantrip attacks the controller gets when the enemy is debuffed and but would have otherwise hit - all in all I think those number of cantrip attacks for each pc will be pretty similar).

Amazingly, an average debuff spell at low levels isn't actually better than just healing your all back after being hit.

Given a choice in combat, I'm always going to go for what's effective, efficient, or necessary at the time and balancing that out with resource management over time. I find healing in combat something that may be required at times but it's a lower priority than preventing damage in the first place, which is where I see the best use for the actions and spell slots in combat.

Click to expand...

So you are going to start healing in combat now instead of debuffing?

FrogReaver said:

So you are going to start healing in combat now instead of debuffing?

Click to expand...

Lol, no. I am going to continue activel making decisions based on the the encounters my characters and party are in. Preventing damage and action denial have been the best use of spell slots in the current system, ime.