Horwath
Legend
actually it can, but not all spells.
D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep
- Thread starter Daztur
- Start date
AnotherGuy
Hero
In 4e I changed it so that all clerical healing through spells required no Healing Surge cost.
Horwath
Legend
Why?
Sure, maybe for thematics, but it was a nice limit on how much beating a character can take in a day, divine intervention or not.
And cleric with daily powers(cure spells) did not use HS, but various encounter powers did.
So valuable spell; no healing surge
cheap spell: uses healing surge
or that all saying: help yourself and gods will help you.
This definitely feels like another edition war post.
Comparing the rules between editions is such a terrible way of doing things. This is a different system with different calibrations. And we all felt like those healing spells were subpar for the common ways it is played.
Now if you want to run a survival game, sure, I get it. Sadly D&D 2024 is not the best system for every play style.
Comparing the rules between editions is such a terrible way of doing things. This is a different system with different calibrations. And we all felt like those healing spells were subpar for the common ways it is played.
Now if you want to run a survival game, sure, I get it. Sadly D&D 2024 is not the best system for every play style.
James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Let's discuss an often brought up point. Classes that don't really rely on resources (in the old days, this was the Fighter, now it's really more the Rogue) can do their thing all day, while other classes have to ration out resources.
The idea being, well, at some point, some classes will run low on resources, allowing the "resourceless" classes to really shine.
But that's never been the reality of D&D in my experience, because even "resourceless" classes do have a basic, elementary, resource.
Hit points.
When there is no longer any source of magical healing or limited-use resources that can hasten combats in various ways to mitigate damage, the adventuring stops. I've never heard a Fighter say "hey, it's ok that you are all out of magic, we can keep going!". If encounter design is in any way based on everyone doing something that isn't "stay in the back and spam cantrips", then there's a problem- classes like the Rogue do not get stronger when everyone else gets weaker, thus, if the other characters get weaker, the party as a whole gets weaker, and that doesn't lead to "the Rogue now shines", it leads to "we're all limping along and barely surviving!".
That's why this kind of class balance simply doesn't work and never has. But when 4e tried to put all classes on the same resource track, a lot of people didn't care for it. Because in their mind, they felt that not having to rely on resources was a strength. "My character can go all day, ha ha ha!" but they really can't. They just don't have to make decisions on when and where to use resources, which makes it easier to play the game for them, but isn't a strength.
If it was, a party of two Fighters and two Rogues would be far superior than any other possible combination. And it really isn't. You shouldn't look at the game as "individual characters are using resources to succeed."
The reality is, "the party as a whole is using resources to succeed". The fact that a class might not have any resources to speak of and does the same thing turn after turn isn't, in reality, a great advantage. This isn't to say that such classes are useless or don't have a place, but what they are providing isn't superior to what everyone else provides in general play. There is no "the Rogue gets weaker if other players never run out of resources" paradigm. The Rogue remains exactly the same on encounter 6 as they were on encounter 1. The fact that they could theoretically be just as viable on encounter 11 (if they somehow haven't run dry on hit points, of course) doesn't matter- the party as a whole is weakened to the point that nobody could get to encounter 11!
Resource attrition as a concept applies to the whole group, not just individual characters, because the game is predicated on the idea you need multiple characters working together to survive.
The fact that there are several different resource management methods for different classes is really not a feature (at least, as far as I've ever noticed) because there's too many variables. Oh what if they only get one short rest? What if they get no short rests? What if the Wizard uses a fireball in encounter 3 instead of encounter 5?
I'm not saying it's impossible- some of you may have long since mastered this sort of thing. I wish I had!
But from my perspective, it's a pain in the backside. I'd much rather have everyone functioning at the same power level every encounter than wonder "is this the encounter that gets turned inside out by a powerful resource?". Or worse "is this the encounter that breaks the party because they don't have enough resources?".
The idea being, well, at some point, some classes will run low on resources, allowing the "resourceless" classes to really shine.
But that's never been the reality of D&D in my experience, because even "resourceless" classes do have a basic, elementary, resource.
Hit points.
When there is no longer any source of magical healing or limited-use resources that can hasten combats in various ways to mitigate damage, the adventuring stops. I've never heard a Fighter say "hey, it's ok that you are all out of magic, we can keep going!". If encounter design is in any way based on everyone doing something that isn't "stay in the back and spam cantrips", then there's a problem- classes like the Rogue do not get stronger when everyone else gets weaker, thus, if the other characters get weaker, the party as a whole gets weaker, and that doesn't lead to "the Rogue now shines", it leads to "we're all limping along and barely surviving!".
That's why this kind of class balance simply doesn't work and never has. But when 4e tried to put all classes on the same resource track, a lot of people didn't care for it. Because in their mind, they felt that not having to rely on resources was a strength. "My character can go all day, ha ha ha!" but they really can't. They just don't have to make decisions on when and where to use resources, which makes it easier to play the game for them, but isn't a strength.
If it was, a party of two Fighters and two Rogues would be far superior than any other possible combination. And it really isn't. You shouldn't look at the game as "individual characters are using resources to succeed."
The reality is, "the party as a whole is using resources to succeed". The fact that a class might not have any resources to speak of and does the same thing turn after turn isn't, in reality, a great advantage. This isn't to say that such classes are useless or don't have a place, but what they are providing isn't superior to what everyone else provides in general play. There is no "the Rogue gets weaker if other players never run out of resources" paradigm. The Rogue remains exactly the same on encounter 6 as they were on encounter 1. The fact that they could theoretically be just as viable on encounter 11 (if they somehow haven't run dry on hit points, of course) doesn't matter- the party as a whole is weakened to the point that nobody could get to encounter 11!
Resource attrition as a concept applies to the whole group, not just individual characters, because the game is predicated on the idea you need multiple characters working together to survive.
The fact that there are several different resource management methods for different classes is really not a feature (at least, as far as I've ever noticed) because there's too many variables. Oh what if they only get one short rest? What if they get no short rests? What if the Wizard uses a fireball in encounter 3 instead of encounter 5?
I'm not saying it's impossible- some of you may have long since mastered this sort of thing. I wish I had!
But from my perspective, it's a pain in the backside. I'd much rather have everyone functioning at the same power level every encounter than wonder "is this the encounter that gets turned inside out by a powerful resource?". Or worse "is this the encounter that breaks the party because they don't have enough resources?".
AnotherGuy
Hero
That's a good point.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
You were doing so very well up to here... 
The answer is to not even try to make healing useful in combat; instead it's to do whatever's necessary to take in-combat healing almost entirely off the table other than high-risk fliers to save dying party members. Healing is what you do between combats, not during them.
Or in other words, if you're healing in combat it means your party has made some big mistakes somewhere. In combat your Clerics should be contributing in other, more offense-minded ways.
One thing your otherwise-good analysis didn't account for was natural hit point recovery: 1 point per in-game day in 1e went to get-'em-all-back-overnight in 4e and 5e. So, not only has healing power increased dramatically over the editions, the need for it has also decreased.
...but here you unfortunately go off the rails.
The answer is to not even try to make healing useful in combat; instead it's to do whatever's necessary to take in-combat healing almost entirely off the table other than high-risk fliers to save dying party members. Healing is what you do between combats, not during them.
Or in other words, if you're healing in combat it means your party has made some big mistakes somewhere. In combat your Clerics should be contributing in other, more offense-minded ways.
One thing your otherwise-good analysis didn't account for was natural hit point recovery: 1 point per in-game day in 1e went to get-'em-all-back-overnight in 4e and 5e. So, not only has healing power increased dramatically over the editions, the need for it has also decreased.
Horwath
Legend
kind of agree with this.You were doing so very well up to here...
...but here you unfortunately go off the rails.
The answer is to not even try to make healing useful in combat; instead it's to do whatever's necessary to take in-combat healing almost entirely off the table other than high-risk fliers to save dying party members. Healing is what you do between combats, not during them.
Or in other words, if you're healing in combat it means your party has made some big mistakes somewhere. In combat your Clerics should be contributing in other, more offense-minded ways.
One thing your otherwise-good analysis didn't account for was natural hit point recovery: 1 point per in-game day in 1e went to get-'em-all-back-overnight in 4e and 5e. So, not only has healing power increased dramatically over the editions, the need for it has also decreased.
combat healing can be a simple cantrips.
Cantrip:
healing word.
Bonus action,
range 60ft
you heal the target to 1HP.
(this would work very well with getting exhaustion level every time you drop to 0HP, this level would go away when healed over 50% max HP)
and for healing:
Cure wounds.
1st level spell
Casting time, 1 minute
heal any number of creatures in 60ft radius,
Total amount of healing is 25HP divided among all targets.
anyone that gains atleast 5HP worth of healing from this spell can spend one of theirs HDs for extra healing.
Upcasting: increase healing amount by 25HP for every spell level over 1st.
increase amount of additional HDs spent by 1 for every spell level over 1st.
Vaalingrade
Legend
The game is mathed out so that you get hit more often than not for a highly variable amount of damage.
Needing healing isn't a result of mistakes, it's a result of playing the game.
Horwath
Legend
We have had parties without any combat healing, it can be done, but it's just a DPS race who will kill who first.
one advantage is that run'n'gun D&D goes a lot faster.
and everyone has had expertise in stealth so we counted on Alpha-strike a lot.
