D&D 5E 5e, Heal Thyself! Is Healing Too Weak in D&D?

[FrozenNorth]

If you face a horde of small monsters, explicitly intended by 5e rules, negating only one enemy turn is wasted effort. Defeating multiple enemies is always better--not just in an ideal case, but in practice too--than temporarily inconveniencing a single opponent. If you face a "solo" monster, it will almost always be designed to actually threaten a whole group of PCs, and thus it will be very hard to completely negate the actions the monster takes. (Unless you're a full casters using offensive spells, of course...)

A slew of small monsters are going to find it tough to breach the armor of your frontliners, making your 100% effective heals MORE useful, not less.

A solo will hit more often…but tends to have fewer attacks, so it seems we are agreed, a healer SHOULDN’T be able to negate a solo’s turn or the entire fight would be deflated.

Sure. Such fights also don't require much if any healing in the first place because they are way below par. Seriously, 2 CR 2 creatures against a 4 person 5th level party?? You could hardly make a less useful point of comparison. Even with the "difficulty multiplier," your example encounter is explicitly Easy! (Easy is 1000 difficulty-weighted XP, Medium is 2000, fight is worth 900 with difficulty multiplier 1.5, net difficulty is 1350, so this is a fairly Easy encounter.)

1. I use Xanathar’s to balance combats, not the DMG, and in Xanathar’s, it’s a standard challenge.

2. On an even playing field that benefits neither side, I disagree that 4 Ogres is an Easy challenge. Standard challenge seems about right.

3. I did make an error in my calculations: we are talking about a dedicated healer, and I assumed a basic cleric. So healing per slot goes up to:
1st level: 10.5
2nd level: 15
3rd level: 19.5

4. But hey, let’s try the same comparison with CR 3 Veterans. Their average DPS is 7.5 against AC 16, so the cleric’s 1st level heals are exceeding attacks against both frontliners and against the more lightly armored mid-line. Sounds about right.

 

[James Gasik]

You know, I just thought of something that might impact my experiences- do most DM's roll monster damage or just take the average amount?

EDIT: there's also a lot of variance between monsters of the same CR. Minotaur vs. Veteran, for example. The Minotaur gets less attacks, but when they hit, a 2nd level Cure Wounds isn't going to patch that sucking chest wound.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Also worth noting, once per short rest (twice starting at 6th level), the Life Cleric can use an action to heal 5* their level hp among any amount of creatures.

So it seems the healbot playstyle IS supported by D&D.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes. It was a comment about 5e specifically, and about (from my perspective) the most likely means to privilege in-combat healing.

This is with the assumption that by "in-combat healing" we are talking about the use of spells and other class abilities to allow in-combat healing, and not simply adopting addition "surge rules" as in the optional rules within the DMG.



Of the topics mentioned, I would lean toward the notion that it would disrupt the resource economy in 5e, particularly as it relates to combat.

I don't think class/build parity would matter much, tbh, and I don't think niche protection is much of a thing in 5e at this point.

Where I do see the issue is that 5e is still tied to the resource economy of the adventure day; while the short rest mechanic breaks that up somewhat, it appears that they are moving away from that in more recent books. So I would put this under the rubric of the "adventuring day." The combats mostly rely on iterations of an attrition model, and tension in combat (to the extent it is generated in 5e) would be dissipated by increasing the amount of healing to equal the amount of damage during combat.

As it is, the tension/release is generated, for the most part, by "getting through" the combat and then healing up.



I don't have any real concerns on that. If someone wants to put in the time and effort, good for them! That said, I think it would be a fair amount of time and effort for decreasing rewards. I think it would certainly be possible, but would involve (for example) changing other mechanics in fundamental ways- removing death saves (and/or whac-a-mole) or greatly increasing the power of monsters. If they do it, awesome sauce!



Ooohhh. No. I don't think 5e is meticulously balanced. At all. Which is why you can screw around with it so much. In fact, I think that it would be quite possible to just say, by fiat, that healing spells do more healing and have a go at it.

But ... I do think that this was a deliberate design choice, and because of the resource management and attrition model used, it will likely have more effects than first considered.

Alright, thanks for the clarifications. Here are a bunch of stray thoughts in response to the above and the lead post:

* My understanding of the lead post was that you were citing the history of D&D (context) to attempt to build the case that the historical precedent of that design/iteration leads you to the position of a low passive (natural) HP recovery rate privileges activatable (consumables, spells, magic items) HP recovery while the inverse is also true (high passive HP recovery thwarts the impact of activatable HP recovery).

To which I reply, 4e's paradigm is a healthy line of evidence that pushes back against this conclusion.

To which you reply that your conclusion/commentary (which draws evidence from the historical precedent of past D&D design and iteration) is 5e exclusive.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously draw from the historical precedent/context of D&D design and iteration as evidence for your conclusion while also saying your commentary/conclusion is 5e exclusive.

I agree that this conversation is about integrated design. I agree that examining the historical record of D&D (and other games) is productive to the conversation. It looked like that was your position in the lead post, but your quoted response to me is a confounder so I don't know where you're standing at this point.

* I agree that 5e is not meticulously balanced. I would say balance is a fairly minor input at the Adventuring Day level, at intraparty level, at the pillar level, at Team Monster threat level etc. And this multi-axis balance wobble only increases as levels pile on. As such, 5e GMs have to curate/manage play significantly (at the scenario design level, at the individual encounter level, at the broad pacing level) to work toward some semblance of a desired challenge level (and this is before even talking about meeting story imperatives/fun which is a big deal given the 5e GM's role as lead storyteller).

In my understanding of their design objectives, this is a feature for 5e design, not a bug; The Return of the GM Jedi. And they met that objective (part of the heterogenous/DIY/make-it-your-own objective). GMing 5e is a significant undertaking with play ebbing and flowing overwhelmingly on the GM's role (and capability within the dynamics of that role).

* In your lead post you conclude that symmetrical healing and monster damage output cannot be a thing, citing 4 features of 5e's design. I don't agree that symmetrical healing and monster damage output cannot be a thing generally (4e is basically this exactly; monster HP damage is designed to be roughly 1/4 PC HP which is the same value of Healing Surges). On the specifics of your 4 features of 5e's particular design that you use to substantiate your position, I don't agree on the first 3. In order:

1) 5e's Death and Dying rules are basically 4e's rules slightly iterated.

2) In 4e (just like in 5e), characters have tons of HPs and easily recharge them between combats.

3) To the degree that this is true in 5e (healing outside of combat is so generous that it mutes in-combat healing), its also true in 4e. Of course, in both games, there is significant variability here which is contingent upon (a) dynamics of the combat sans Team Monster and (b) the apex potency/broad capacity (in 5e, sheer numbers amplify this a lot due to BA) of Team Monster.

4) Ok, now here is definitely a thing. Control in 5e is certainly muted broadly. To a large degree, its been rolled back to the purview of primary spellcasters (particularly Wizards). Despite their being a specific Controller Role, Control in 4e was ubiquitous among Classes/builds etc. Coupled with the potency of terrain interaction/battlefield array, Control/movement was a huge part of 4e's engine. 5e has rolled all of that back:

- Extremely potent battle-dictating Control is no longer ubiquitous across Classes/Monsters (its back to being a primary spellcaster thing).

- Terrain interaction/battlefield array is back to being extremely muted in terms of creating synergies, obstacles, and complex decision-points.

- As a consequence of each of the above + their interaction + 5e's hugely capable ranged damage paradigm, we've decisively returned to a paradigm where action economy expenditure decision-points are routed through the "the best status effect is dead" axiom.


So, in my opinion, the real issue is the muted impact of Control + battlefield array (and 5e's huge ranged damage paradigm which can outright obviate spatial control). Those two things create a requirement for staying power to rally/overcome their individual dynamics and their synergies. You need to survive long enough to overcome the obstacle/advantage of Team Monster + battlefield array > reorient the battlefield array/fictional positioning to turn the tide.

So the 2nd order effect of potent Control dynamics in combat is attendant importance of tactical recovery (when/where/how much/which resource); "Healing" in D&D lexicon.

---

So a few final thoughts. if I was looking to make Healing more consequential generally (as a feature of play) + more thematically potent + more engaging tactically, I would look at the following things:

* If its just about thematic potency/story relevance, find a GM that will curate play in such a way where healing features more prominently. Everything has a cost though, and this really just means the thematic potency/story relevance of your healing is not-so-much an expression of your own agency, but rather an expression of the GM's curation. BUT...table time on combats may not be appreciably increased (if you care about that).

* If I was @FitzTheRuke or @James Gasik or @EzekielRaiden and its about consequentialness (as an expression of your own agency within your decision-points) + thematic potency + tactical engagement, then perhaps consider designing a module that increased how prolific Control is for at least Team Monster + battlefield array (terrain and hazard mechanics). As a downstream effect, that will make staying power/rallying (Healing) much more relevant. You can either design this yourself, or, better yet, project it with your GM/table!

Again, everything has a cost. With this route, your thematic expression/tactical relevance of your healing will absolutely be an expression of your own agency. But the baked-in cost is (a) you've got to put the time in to create this module (but...hey...this is 5e, isn't DYI the point?) and (b) table time on combats will surely be appreciably increased (if you care about that) but it should be increased in a stimulating way!

 

[James Gasik]

Also worth noting, once per short rest (twice starting at 6th level), the Life Cleric can use an action to heal 5* their level hp among any amount of creatures.

So it seems the healbot playstyle IS supported by D&D.

Yeah, it depends on what kind of Cleric you are, I guess. I mean that a Life Cleric is going to heal better is a no brainer. I wasn't, and I ended up trying to take on the healer role. That might sound silly to some, but I had a theme in mind, and I didn't think that the baseline healing was going to be as....let's say, "seemingly less impactful" than it was.

 

[Lyxen]

You know, I just thought of something that might impact my experiences- do most DM's roll monster damage or just take the average amount?

Roll, always. More fun in person, and automated in VTTs anyway.

 

[James Gasik]

Also worth noting, once per short rest (twice starting at 6th level), the Life Cleric can use an action to heal 5* their level hp among any amount of creatures.

So it seems the healbot playstyle IS supported by D&D.

Alright, thanks for the clarifications. Here are a bunch of stray thoughts in response to the above and the lead post:

* My understanding of the lead post was that you were citing the history of D&D (context) to attempt to build the case that the historical precedent of that design/iteration leads you to the position of a low passive (natural) HP recovery rate privileges activatable (consumables, spells, magic items) HP recovery while the inverse is also true (high passive HP recovery thwarts the impact of activatable HP recovery).

To which I reply, 4e's paradigm is a healthy line of evidence that pushes back against this conclusion.

To which you reply that your conclusion/commentary (which draws evidence from the historical precedent of past D&D design and iteration) is 5e exclusive.

I don't understand how you can simultaneously draw from the historical precedent/context of D&D design and iteration as evidence for your conclusion while also saying your commentary/conclusion is 5e exclusive.

I agree that this conversation is about integrated design. I agree that examining the historical record of D&D (and other games) is productive to the conversation. It looked like that was your position in the lead post, but your quoted response to me is a confounder so I don't know where you're standing at this point.

* I agree that 5e is not meticulously balanced. I would say balance is a fairly minor input at the Adventuring Day level, at intraparty level, at the pillar level, at Team Monster threat level etc. And this multi-axis balance wobble only increases as levels pile on. As such, 5e GMs have to curate/manage play significantly (at the scenario design level, at the individual encounter level, at the broad pacing level) to work toward some semblance of a desired challenge level (and this is before even talking about meeting story imperatives/fun which is a big deal given the 5e GM's role as lead storyteller).

In my understanding of their design objectives, this is a feature for 5e design, not a bug; The Return of the GM Jedi. And they met that objective (part of the heterogenous/DIY/make-it-your-own objective). GMing 5e is a significant undertaking with play ebbing and flowing overwhelmingly on the GM's role (and capability within the dynamics of that role).

* In your lead post you conclude that symmetrical healing and monster damage output cannot be a thing, citing 4 features of 5e's design. I don't agree that symmetrical healing and monster damage output cannot be a thing generally (4e is basically this exactly; monster HP damage is designed to be roughly 1/4 PC HP which is the same value of Healing Surges). On the specifics of your 4 features of 5e's particular design that you use to substantiate your position, I don't agree on the first 3. In order:

1) 5e's Death and Dying rules are basically 4e's rules slightly iterated.

2) In 4e (just like in 5e), characters have tons of HPs and easily recharge them between combats.

3) To the degree that this is true in 5e (healing outside of combat is so generous that it mutes in-combat healing), its also true in 4e. Of course, in both games, there is significant variability here which is contingent upon (a) dynamics of the combat sans Team Monster and (b) the apex potency/broad capacity (in 5e, sheer numbers amplify this a lot due to BA) of Team Monster.

4) Ok, now here is definitely a thing. Control in 5e is certainly muted broadly. To a large degree, its been rolled back to the purview of primary spellcasters (particularly Wizards). Despite their being a specific Controller Role, Control in 4e was ubiquitous among Classes/builds etc. Coupled with the potency of terrain interaction/battlefield array, Control/movement was a huge part of 4e's engine. 5e has rolled all of that back:

- Extremely potent battle-dictating Control is no longer ubiquitous across Classes/Monsters (its back to being a primary spellcaster thing).

- Terrain interaction/battlefield array is back to being extremely muted in terms of creating synergies, obstacles, and complex decision-points.

- As a consequence of each of the above + their interaction + 5e's hugely capable ranged damage paradigm, we've decisively returned to a paradigm where action economy expenditure decision-points are routed through the "the best status effect is dead" axiom.


So, in my opinion, the real issue is the muted impact of Control + battlefield array (and 5e's huge ranged damage paradigm which can outright obviate spatial control). Those two things create a requirement for staying power to rally/overcome their individual dynamics and their synergies. You need to survive long enough to overcome the obstacle/advantage of Team Monster + battlefield array > reorient the battlefield array/fictional positioning to turn the tide.

So the 2nd order effect of potent Control dynamics in combat is attendant importance of tactical recovery (when/where/how much/which resource); "Healing" in D&D lexicon.

---

So a few final thoughts. if I was looking to make Healing more consequential generally (as a feature of play) + more thematically potent + more engaging tactically, I would look at the following things:

* If its just about thematic potency/story relevance, find a GM that will curate play in such a way where healing features more prominently. Everything has a cost though, and this really just means the thematic potency/story relevance of your healing is not-so-much an expression of your own agency, but rather an expression of the GM's curation. BUT...table time on combats may not be appreciably increased (if you care about that).

* If I was @FitzTheRuke or @James Gasik or @EzekielRaiden and its about consequentialness (as an expression of your own agency within your decision-points) + thematic potency + tactical engagement, then perhaps consider designing a module that increased how prolific Control is for at least Team Monster + battlefield array (terrain and hazard mechanics). As a downstream effect, that will make staying power/rallying (Healing) much more relevant. You can either design this yourself, or, better yet, project it with your GM/table!

Again, everything has a cost. With this route, your thematic expression/tactical relevance of your healing will absolutely be an expression of your own agency. But the baked-in cost is (a) you've got to put the time in to create this module (but...hey...this is 5e, isn't DYI the point?) and (b) table time on combats will surely be appreciably increased (if you care about that) but it should be increased in a stimulating way!

Should I take on the DM mantle again in the foreseeable future, there's a few things I've thought about to try. The simplest idea, at the moment, is to get rid of Cure Wounds, and give Healing Word the d8 scaling. That would feel more like 4e healing- though making healing use Hit Dice would be even better, I just need to see Hit Dice in action more to make that determination.

I can't really see making big changes for monsters at this stage, since I have no idea what sort of group I'd end up with, and I like to keep house rules as minimal as possible- in my experience, groups have difficulty with long lists of rules, as they get forgotten, and nobody wants to relearn the game from one table to the next.

I usually use average monster damages, but most other DM's I play with love to roll dice. Maybe giving people the option to take average healing results would help?

Obviously, they might not decide to have a major healer at all, in which case I might have to shorten rest times to let them get at their Hit Dice. This would make a Bard seem really nice to have.

There's a lot of variables, like the presence of Second Wind letting the Fighter regenerate like a Troll if they get frequent short rests.

Of course, I'm sure the paradigm will be adjusted in the future, with WotC seemingly wanting to change how short rests work.

 

[James Gasik]

Roll, always. More fun in person, and automated in VTTs anyway.

Yeah see, I don't, because it makes running the game faster for me. but most of the other DM's I've played at do, and that can lead to "ok he's fine, he's fine, she's fine, my turn is about to come up HOLY CARP!" moments when someone takes a massive outlier hit, and then I have to heal them and well, lol. Good luck with that.

 

[Lyxen]

It's a little rough to do, since the extra d4's rarely give enough hit points to prevent someone from being conked out again. Which is probably where my frustration came from as a Cleric. If someone was taken down, I wanted to heal them so it wouldn't just happen again before my next turn. And sometimes, that just wasn't the case, even with Cure Wounds.

That's exactly my point, however, even with the AC in 5e, there's no guarantee that the guy will fall down again if you use a high level spell. He has to be targeted, he has to be hit, and then the mount healed might just be sufficient.

But this does have a lot to do with the way I experienced the game, with less and more dangerous combats. AL requires you to complete the session ~2 hours, and in a home game, I've found more than 3 encounters, unless they are "you see four orcs standing watch" which take one round at best, eats up way too much time.

We play exactly that way, which should be an encouragement to burn your high level slots on keeping people up (Obviously, nova is not specifically encouraged, rather discouraged by the possibility of an even more dangerous encounter). In particular because, at our tables (and I think like at yours), there is no "levelling up" of adversaries, they are what they are, and sometimes it's better to flee, there is no guarantee that fights are winnable. So when someone goes down, it's a clear signal that if the opposition has not even weakened significantly, it's time to retreat, keeping one guy up might be a possibility, but it will not be so if a second guy comes down, etc.

So it makes sense to pop a high level HW, to make sure that the last push succeeds or to give a higher chance to retreat in good order.

Obviously, that makes me an outlier, because a lot of people claim they have no problem providing 6 encounters or so in their sessions.

Are you sure about this ? Because honestly, I don't recall anyone saying this, whereas I can recall many people mocking the 6-8 encounters a day.

Note that I don't mock it, I take it for just what it is, an estimate of the number of medium encounters for a day, to be adjusted for the difficulty of the encounter. As my encounters go from "extremely easy" (sometimes not even sorted by an actual fight) because the players were very clever in choosing their adversaries and manipulating the circumstances to "impossible", that kind of computation simply makes no sense at our tables and we ignore it.

I guess that's what would happen, if we were like "ok, no table talk, minimal roleplay, no snack breaks, let's get this done!", and D&D is more of a social experience (for me) than that.

Honestly, I don't think that makes you an outlier. Apart from AL, which does not exist where I've lived playing 5e (Australia, Singapore, France), I have not encountered one table who did it differently from what we do at our tables, see above.

 

[James Gasik]

Well, honestly, I don't know. I see the 6-8 encounters comment brought up a lot in game balance discussions, and it seems like a standard reply for a lot of people to say that, if you run your games by that benchmark (which I know isn't a benchmark at all, but...) you won't have any problems. Since I was told rather pointedly that you can't establish a consensus for discussing the game when I made a thread about it, I've decided the best way to go forward is to point out that I have no experience with this type of 5e game.