D&D 5E Using the "Bonus Action Potion Houserule" with Cure Wounds/Healing Word

[ECMO3]

That said, I feel like the differences between HW and CW make it so that, as of now, if you have to choose just one, it's not an easy choice. The casting time is a big part of that- HW is not worth a full action. If you make CW a bonus action to cast, I don't know that the range on HW would be enough to make it worth taking.

I don't think it is very difficult. If you are playing a healer and your primary role is to heal party members you are probably going to prepare both at 1st level and get rid of cure wounds at 3rd level when aid becomes available. If you play any other role you are probably only going to get healing word.

I have never actually played a cleric in 5E that prepared Cure Wounds, but that is because I don't play clerics as healers. Usually I tell other party members I will bring you back from zero with HW but I am usually going to be doing other things in combat besides healing and you need to manage your hit points yourself. That is not my job just because I am the cleric.

I can honestly say I have never played a Cleric and thought to myself - I wish I had prepared Cure Wounds.

 

[James Gasik]

This is incorrect. In AD&D rolling hit points was the only option, so a 1st level fighter with a 16 con had on average .57hps with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 12.


This is incorrect as well. A 1st level fighter with a longsword in AD&D is doing 1d8+1 against medium creatures and 1d12+1 against large creatures. With a two-handed sword it is 1d10+1 and 3d6+1 respectively, with a +2 bonus for specialization. However if he was specialized in a weapon he would only be proficient in two other weapons at 1st level.

A 16 strength was also not that common, often fighters had a 14 or so.


The action economy and action order is entirely different in 5E. There were no bonus actions, split movement or reactions, all of which add damage.

Further while the damage was similar it was more difficult to hit enemies. A 1E 1st level fighter with a 16 strength needed a15 to hit someone in chainmail. A 5E fighter with a 16 strength needs an 11 to hit someone in chainmail.

I'm not sure how I got +2 damage for that Strength; you need 18 for that, and it's actually darn near impossible- any Fighter with 18 Strength would immediately have 18 (01) at least, so as I was. But it's still not a huge difference, most things you'd be fighting at first level have 1 HD or less. I will concede the attack bonus- in this regard it's apples and oranges, though my fuzzy memories of AD&D has most enemies at level 1 having an AC of around 7 or so.

I won't get into whether or not a 1st level Fighter would have a 16 Strength- I saw a lot of variance back then. Fairly rolled, no, but some tables I observed had more liberal ways to roll for ability scores than 3d6 or even 4d6drop1.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think the players are really benefiting from hit point bloat though.

They aren't meant to, really. Neither are the monsters in theory. HP bloat causes many problems IMO in an attempt to solve the treadmill effect of increasing numbers which Bounded Accuracy addressed. All that happened is one issue was solved while another was created.

Be biggest impact I have seen is spells are less effective.

Compare sleep and fireball between AD&D and 5E;

AD&D sleep could affect 4-16 orcs (1 HD creatures).

5E sleep affects 5d8 hit points of creatures and the average orc has 15 hp. You have about a 6% chance you will roll so low you won't even affect 1, and less than a 9% chances you will affect 2. So, 85% of the time, you'll get a single orc with a sleep spell.

Obviously, AD&D sleep is much more powerful/effective. It has a 50/50 chance of getting an ogre. 5E sleep has no chance unless you upcast it (severely if you want the same 50/50 chance--like 5th level!)

AD&D fireball (5d6 at 5th level) deals an average of 17.5 damage. An orc would only have a 20% chance of making its save vs. the spell. So, 98% of the time, the fireball will kill the typical orc (5 hp for 1 HD), even if it makes its saving throw.

5E fireball (8d6 at 5th level) deals an average 28 damage. An orc would have a 40% chance (DEX +1 vs. DC 13) of making its save vs. the spell (double that of AD&D!). So, the fireball will kill the typical orc (15 hp) just 38% percent of the time if it makes its saving throw.

For the most part, AD&D fireball pretty much kills any orc it hits, but 5E fireball gives an orc about a 25% chance of survival.

Again, obviously AD&D fireball is more powerful due to AD&D creatures having fewer hit points, and this 5E fireball is less powerful (despite doing more damage on average!) because 5E creatures have more hit points.

But all this has little to due with the thread topic, so DM me if you wish to discuss it further or begin another thread.

But this is par for the course in 5E generally, although there are always exceptions (such as magic missile in 5E getting 3 missiles, where as AD&D was 1 missile for every odd level (2 at 3rd, 3 at 5th, etc.).

 

[GreyLord]

^ THIS!

Healing isn't weak in 5E at all. With spending HD on short rests, the Healer feat, easy healing potions listed on the equipment table, and so many types of healing spells and classes/subclasses with access to them, it is abundant with healing potential.


Yeah, I've heard people say the whole healing potion as a bonus action. I would never do this. Frankly, it's ridiculous.

I've never heard anyone mention the action to maximum option, however, which just makes it more so IMO.

How about this: if your party keeps getting injured so much, try avoiding combat?

Now, this won't help for the groups who want more healing, but FWIW we use maximum rolls when upcasting, but for all spells. So, a level 2 cure wounds does 1d8+8 (maximum of 2nd d8) +WIS mod, while a level 5 fireball would do 8d6 + 12 (maximum of the extra 2d6).

That is an interesting house rule. I'll have to think on it.

 

[GreyLord]

I don't think the players are really benefiting from hit point bloat though. I mean, a 1st level Fighter with 16 Con in AD&D has 12 hit points. In 5e they have 13.

And damage? 1st level Fighter in AD&D with 16 Strength is doing 1d8+2 (+4 if weapon specialization is on the table) with a long sword, or 1d10+2/+4. His 5e counterpart is doing 1d8+3 or 2d6+3. Again, not huge differences. Actually if weapon specialization is taken into account, you have a bonus attack every off turn, making the AD&D Fighter more powerful!

So I'm not entirely sure I get why monsters have to have more hit points and do more damage if the players aren't significantly stronger than they used to be...*

*At least until 10th level, where the PC's still keep getting hit dice.

I could have sworn in 1e AD&D 12 HP is POSSIBLE, but not necessarily a given (DM dependent of course). That would be a 1 in 10 chance of rolling that, with an equal chance of having only 3 HP. The average I think would be 7.5 HP so somewhere in the range of 7 or 8 HP for the Fighter.

How do you get 1d10+2/+4 damage from a longsword in AD&D? I'd think you could get 1d8 (+STR) or 1d12 (+STR). With 16 STR that should be a 1d8+1 damage or a 1d12+1 damage from what I normally play. If I were single classed and UA was available I'd specialize in longsword thus giving me a +2+1 (total +3)Damage there on that note, and eventually double specialize for a +3 damage making it 1d8+4 or 1d12+4 damage.

In 5e for damage I think if I were using a longsword with one hand (instead of 2 hands) I'd probably have a shield and go dueling which would give me another +2 damage. That would give me a total of +5 damage with 16 STR in 5e. Eventually I'd put more points into STR to get a 20 STR which would give me a +7 damage to my hits as in 5e you get to increase your Ability scores every so often as part of the game involved with leveling (just like double specialization is eventually something you could do as you level with AD&D with UA).

 

[James Gasik]

They aren't meant to, really. Neither are the monsters in theory. HP bloat causes many problems IMO in an attempt to solve the treadmill effect of increasing numbers which Bounded Accuracy addressed. All that happened is one issue was solved while another was created.

Be biggest impact I have seen is spells are less effective.

Compare sleep and fireball between AD&D and 5E;

AD&D sleep could affect 4-16 orcs (1 HD creatures).

5E sleep affects 5d8 hit points of creatures and the average orc has 15 hp. You have about a 6% chance you will roll so low you won't even affect 1, and less than a 9% chances you will affect 2. So, 85% of the time, you'll get a single orc with a sleep spell.

Obviously, AD&D sleep is much more powerful/effective. It has a 50/50 chance of getting an ogre. 5E sleep has no chance unless you upcast it (severely if you want the same 50/50 chance--like 5th level!)

AD&D fireball (5d6 at 5th level) deals an average of 17.5 damage. An orc would only have a 20% chance of making its save vs. the spell. So, 98% of the time, the fireball will kill the typical orc (5 hp for 1 HD), even if it makes its saving throw.

5E fireball (8d6 at 5th level) deals an average 28 damage. An orc would have a 40% chance (DEX +1 vs. DC 13) of making its save vs. the spell (double that of AD&D!). So, the fireball will kill the typical orc (15 hp) just 38% percent of the time if it makes its saving throw.

For the most part, AD&D fireball pretty much kills any orc it hits, but 5E fireball gives an orc about a 25% chance of survival.

Again, obviously AD&D fireball is more powerful due to AD&D creatures having fewer hit points, and this 5E fireball is less powerful (despite doing more damage on average!) because 5E creatures have more hit points.

But all this has little to due with the thread topic, so DM me if you wish to discuss it further or begin another thread.

But this is par for the course in 5E generally, although there are always exceptions (such as magic missile in 5E getting 3 missiles, where as AD&D was 1 missile for every odd level (2 at 3rd, 3 at 5th, etc.).

I fully agree with you about spell effectiveness, but every time I bring it up, people are incredulous- just last month there was a thread about making fireball weaker in D&D One because it's "too powerful" now, despite being a 3rd level spell that can fail to kill a CR 1 Bugbear.

 

[James Gasik]

I could have sworn in 1e AD&D 12 HP is POSSIBLE, but not necessarily a given (DM dependent of course). That would be a 1 in 10 chance of rolling that, with an equal chance of having only 3 HP. The average I think would be 7.5 HP so somewhere in the range of 7 or 8 HP for the Fighter.

How do you get 1d10+2/+4 damage from a longsword in AD&D? I'd think you could get 1d8 (+STR) or 1d12 (+STR). With 16 STR that should be a 1d8+1 damage or a 1d12+1 damage from what I normally play. If I were single classed and UA was available I'd specialize in longsword thus giving me a +2+1 (total +3)Damage there on that note, and eventually double specialize for a +3 damage making it 1d8+4 or 1d12+4 damage.

In 5e for damage I think if I were using a longsword with one hand (instead of 2 hands) I'd probably have a shield and go dueling which would give me another +2 damage. That would give me a total of +5 damage with 16 STR in 5e. Eventually I'd put more points into STR to get a 20 STR which would give me a +7 damage to my hits as in 5e you get to increase your Ability scores every so often as part of the game involved with leveling (just like double specialization is eventually something you could do as you level with AD&D with UA).

Uh, I was mis-remembering what a 16 Strength gave in AD&D, where it's only +1 damage. And yeah, I forgot it wasn't until later that max hit points at level 1 became standard, though it was a rule adopted by pretty much everyone I ever played with.

The 1d10 damage is for a two-handed sword, a weapon that I don't think I ever saw anyone use because dual wielding was so busted.

ECMO3 rightly points out that while the damage isn't hugely different, the chance to hit is. A 1st level Fighter hits AC 0 on a 20, same as all other first level characters. A 17 Strength is required to even get a +1 to hit. Weapon Specialization isn't core (not until 2e), but if allowed, it would give the Fighter +1 to hit and +2 to damage, along with 3/2 attacks per turn.

If you play an Elf, you get a +1 to hit with a long sword. Now if you luck out and get high 18 % Strength, you can have greater damage and combat bonuses than any starting 5e Fighter, but that's far from standard.

2e would add a few other modifiers, like Fine and Exception-quality weapons, Bladesong, etc. etc., but 1e also had improved weapon specialization.

The proficiency bonus alone gives the 5e Fighter a +2 to hit that the AD&D Fighter wouldn't have though. The numbers do change a bit when fighting large sized foes, but that's not something a 1st level AD&D Fighter should be doing.

If you'll excuse my shoddy mistakes in the previous post, my point isn't completely off-based. Monsters are tougher and deal more damage than they ever did in AD&D. Players aren't a whole lot tougher, though they do gain a few tricks they didn't have before, like Fighters having Second Wind, spellcasters having cantrips and more spell slots at low levels (but less at high levels). The players do hit more often, and they generally have better AC (though by 2e, it was possible to have a starting Fighter with AC 0, the equivalent of AC 20 without any magic).

My main issue with healing magic is it's effectiveness. In AD&D, you needed healing spells; natural healing would take forever to get the party back into the dungeon. One encounter could tap your Cleric out for the day.

Now it's true that 5e gives you more options to heal without magic, but when you compare the effect of healing someone as opposed to just using those same resources to kill enemies, it's pretty sad (and as D&D Reborn points out, the damage spells do isn't exactly stellar either, compared to the toughness of enemies in 5e).

Now sure, that Bugbear isn't hitting every turn for 2d8+2; his attack bonus is +4, and most 1st level Fighters have an AC of 16-18. OTOH, the AD&D Bugbear has the same chance to hit due to his 3+1 Hit Dice, and an AD&D Fighter could be rocking AC 3 with Banded Mail and a Shield, so that's roughly about the same.

Whether the Fighter has 1 hit point or 15 vs. what you could have in 5e is subject to a great many variables, but even if we assume the average AD&D Fighter has 5.5 hit points, and the average 5e Fighter has at least 10, we still have the issue that the 1e Bugbear does 2d4 damage and has 14 hit points on average, and his 5e counterpart does 2d8+2 and has 27 hit points, yet player side damage and healing hasn't improved to the same degree.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That is an interesting house rule. I'll have to think on it.

I hope you try it. We really like it and it makes upcasting many spells a viable option. Otherwise, more often than not, it just isn't worth it...

I fully agree with you about spell effectiveness, but every time I bring it up, people are incredulous- just last month there was a thread about making fireball weaker in D&D One because it's "too powerful" now, despite being a 3rd level spell that can fail to kill a CR 1 Bugbear.

It really just depends on how you want magic to interact with the world and how effective you want it to be.

5E doesn't have the checks necessary to balance magic which is more powerful like it was in AD&D. For many, even in 5E it is too powerful because of the "I win" spells and how spells work automatically. These people want to see some checks restored, or magic diminished.

A while ago I did a thread on What Level Wizard is this Level Fighter, the results averaged out as this:

Fighter 1 = Wizard 1
Fighter 10 = Wizard 7
Fighter 20 = Wizard 12

Generally, it is widely accepted that spells (not just Wizard really--but they have the most of them) give full-casters more power, utility, etc. than the features of martials of equivalent levels. Martials must be of higher level to try to keep up.

(BOLDED response)

As to the bolded part, consider this: what can a 5th-level Fighter do that can take out 2-3 bugbears in a single turn?

Because that is what your typical fireball can do. Since the Fighter (or any non-caster) can't do it, why should a full-caster using a spell be able to?

Now, I've heard all the arguments (or most of them anyway LOL) about limited slots vs. at-will abilities, what impact feats have, and so on, but frankly 5E is less-balanced in many ways than earlier editions. People wanting to diminish spells like fireball are trying one direction to restore that balance. The other option is increasing the power-level of what non-casters can do to match casters... Neither will make everyone happy, however.

 

[DND_Reborn]

My main issue with healing magic is it's effectiveness. In AD&D, you needed healing spells; natural healing would take forever to get the party back into the dungeon. One encounter could tap your Cleric out for the day.

The simple truth is healing didn't keep up with damage in AD&D, nor does it in 5E, but it was never meant to.

Healing in combat is meant to help, not win the battle. It is one option, just as other protective spells can keep PCs going by increasing AC, saves, temp HP, or whatever.

Changing healing spells to match HD size for the creature healed instead of 1d8 or whatever helps make healing at least as effective as it was in AD&D. Allowing healing spells outside of combat to be maximum is a good way to help as well when it comes to recovery anyway.

 

[James Gasik]

I hope you try it. We really like it and it makes upcasting many spells a viable option. Otherwise, more often than not, it just isn't worth it...


It really just depends on how you want magic to interact with the world and how effective you want it to be.

5E doesn't have the checks necessary to balance magic which is more powerful like it was in AD&D. For many, even in 5E it is too powerful because of the "I win" spells and how spells work automatically. These people want to see some checks restored, or magic diminished.

A while ago I did a thread on What Level Wizard is this Level Fighter, the results averaged out as this:

Fighter 1 = Wizard 1
Fighter 10 = Wizard 7
Fighter 20 = Wizard 12

Generally, it is widely accepted that spells (not just Wizard really--but they have the most of them) give full-casters more power, utility, etc. than the features of martials of equivalent levels. Martials must be of higher level to try to keep up.

(BOLDED response)

As to the bolded part, consider this: what can a 5th-level Fighter do that can take out 2-3 bugbears in a single turn?

Because that is what your typical fireball can do. Since the Fighter (or any non-caster) can't do it, why should a full-caster using a spell be able to?

Now, I've heard all the arguments (or most of them anyway LOL) about limited slots vs. at-will abilities, what impact feats have, and so on, but frankly 5E is less-balanced in many ways than earlier editions. People wanting to diminish spells like fireball are trying one direction to restore that balance. The other option is increasing the power-level of what non-casters can do to match casters... Neither will make everyone happy, however.

Ok but I mean, a Bugbear is a CR 1 enemy. You'd think a 3rd level spell would delete such foes outright, wouldn't you? As for whether or not a caster should have that power, I dunno. I mean, you only get so many uses of that ability per day.

I personally wouldn't mind Fighters having strong limited-use abilities, but that's not something a lot of people want. I looked at the Hunter Ranger getting basically Whirlwind Attack as something the Fighter should have. Though the fact that it's somehow an 11th feature makes me scratch my head.