James Gasik
We don't talk about Pun-Pun
I mean it comes down to personal preference, obviously, but let's imagine two systems.
One system is called "heroic effort". It's described as digging deep into your reserves of strength, a surge of adrenaline, the occasional ability for someone to perform feats that far exceed their normal capacity- the hysterical strength that allows a mother to lift a car off her child.
Another is called "call upon faith". It's described as letting of one's ego and calling upon the supernatural for succor in a time of need- the power inherent to faith, or actually calling upon a divine (or infernal) entity.
Now, one could say that there's no real difference here- both are abilities a character could employ, which are controlled by the player- the player decides that this moment is when their character enjoys a burst of power or gives in and prays to an uncaring deity.
However, one has both a roleplaying element and a described action that needs be taken- uttering a pray or oath, falling to one's knees, steepling one's hands, whichever.
Some people will view the second ability more favorably in that it's the result of something occurring in-universe, despite the fact that both are abilities invoked by the player.
If a game lets you spend an "action point" to do a thing, we can certainly make up a fiction as to what's going on, but it's still a resource that most people can't call upon at will, yet the player can decide the when and where.
If a game lets you "cast a spell", the fiction is known- the character performs an action in game, one that is usable at the will of the character.
How fine a line between either ability exists is dependent on the observer- if one feels that the narrative is more important than the mechanics, they might favor one above the other.
If the reverse is true, and you believe the mechanics that govern the game are more important than the narrative, you might not see a difference at all!
I use "might" here for a reason- these are two extremes, and there's a lot of middle ground, based on how a person thinks or what their experiences are. For example, take the crossbow.
Some people might look at the crossbow's mechanics and question why the weapon is better at lower levels, as it does slightly more damage, but the instant someone gets the Extra Attack feature, it requires specialized training to compete with the bow. They might come to the conclusion that the weapon needs to be fixed in some way so that both bows and crossbows are competitive options.
Others, who has studied such weapons may feel that the bow is supposed to be a superior weapon in most respects, and the advantage of the crossbow is that it's easier to pick up and learn to use, and question why the heavy crossbow is a martial weapon in the first place, and see nothing wrong with the current iteration otherwise (and may houserule that all crossbows are, in fact, simple weapons).
Another person who has used both weapons might point out that the crossbow is lacking features it ought have- due to iron sights, it's a more accurate weapon than a bow, it can be fired from positions a bow cannot be, and so on and so forth, and add houserules to reflect that.
What gets these long running debates going is the fact that our individual preferences get in the way- some would much rather a game that closely hews with reality and aren't concerned with balanced mechanics- or any mechanics that get in the way of such things!
Some options are better than others in reality, so it should be for the game. If a fire spell doesn't say it ignites objects, too bad, if you're in a bakery, that flour is going up!
Others think the game rules should be functional and balanced, even if that means "realism" has to take a back seat from time to time- D&D, as a game, is full of these, long since enshrined. While some of us accept that, others only tolerate it- sure, the nature of initiative and turn order is an abstraction, but if it results in bizarre or illogical results, they might feel that these should be ignored in the favor of the narrative, even if everything is working as intended.
And that's where this whole sub-discussion lies. Yes, it's demonstrably true that player characters have access to knowledge a "real person" (for lack of a better term) might not. And the resources they employ can be both internal (the character has access to them routinely) or external (only the player can invoke them). But in both cases...it's still the player's decision, even if it might not be the character's decision.
The designers of 5e do not apparently take this into account. If a Fighter uses their Action Surge or Second Wind, the game doesn't tell us if the character is doing something to invoke these powers, or if they represent something outside their control.
Whereas swinging a sword, performing a combat maneuver, or casting a spell are inherently actions the character is taking.
Sometimes it's both- in the case of the Battle Master ability I posted upthread, the character is doing something- they are sizing up an enemy by observing them. But the information gleaned, couched in game mechanics, doesn't necessarily imply that the Battle Master knows what a Dexterity score or a Fighter level are- only that these things correlate to something the character can understand. What that is, the game doesn't consider important, or at least, more important than giving the player relevant information.
A narrative explanation can be made, and this can be described and roleplayed, but that's on the people playing and running the game- the mechanics care not.
Whether this is a good or bad thing has been debated for decades, and never will be settled.
----
Now, back to healing power creep! Whether increased healing is good or bad is based on a few factors, including, but not limited to:
1- is having more "uptime", where characters are able to make actions in the game more important than "downtime", where characters are unable to act. Characters at positive hit points usually can act, characters who are dying usually cannot. Most conditions in the game impose penalties on actions or prevent them outright. Some feel they should be used sparingly, so that the amount of time players are unable to actually play the game is minimal, while others feel that them's the breaks.
2- if players really want to cast healing spells before players go down. Some players like the support role and would rather have more efficient healing spells. Others would rather do anything at all but heal their fallen allies. A Light or Storm Cleric might be happiest blasting enemies and will grumble at having to cast an emergency healing word- they're not going to really care much whether said spell heals 1d4 or 2d4, unless the difference is enough to ensure they won't be forced to heal you again next turn.
3- how often and common short rests are. While the healing resources given to characters in 5e are significant, if you can't stop to rest when you need to, you have to rely on magical healing more. If you can't access healing surges, they basically don't exist, and it's not insane to think that something needs to take up the slack. On the other hand, if characters are always resting, then they really don't need more healing outside of combat.
4- the prevalence of healing spells in the game. Somewhat related to point 2, but it's important to note that groups vary. A group with one Cleric, two Clerics, or no Clerics (or Bards, Druids, etc. etc.) will play very differently. The amount of potential resources that can be used to heal cannot be understated here! A group with no magical healing doesn't care about more efficient healing spells- unless I missed hearing it, it's not like healing potions heal more hit points in 2024- the only change is that they can be used as a bonus action, which is a potential buff to action economy, but I can tell you having used this rule for much of this year, only to a point, since WotC absolutely adores giving some characters other uses for that action!
A group with two Clerics and a Druid are less likely to need this buff than the party with one. I don't think WotC expects the "default" adventuring party (if there is such a thing) to have more than one character with healing spells, and that no doubt plays a large role in why healing spells are buffed.
5- encounter difficulty. Some enemies hit like a truck. The CR 1 Brown Bear can deal almost 30 hit points in a turn. This is, of course, limited by their chance to hit, but as enemies grow stronger, so too does their accuracy and damage output (generally speaking). If a campaign consists of a few "marquee fights" with strong enemies or many smaller combats per session, will affect how much "burst" healing you need at the moment.
I argued in the past that if a character is taking 30 damage in a round, then a max-level healing spell has to exceed that damage to be worth that action. I know a lot of people disagree with that notion, but the simple truth is, healing is not helping you win an encounter as efficiently as damaging or disabling enemies. As an MtG player might say, healing is just "losing slower".
D&D has this interesting scenario where damage spells are not terribly efficient at dispatching foes- CR 1 foes who might survive an 8d6 fireball exist, for example. But somehow, healing spells don't even keep pace with damaging spells, let alone with incoming damage!
Now some might prefer the offense beats defense paradigm, as it leads towards faster, deadlier combats. And you know what, if that works for you, great! But the idea that a character can select one of several strategies, but some are just generally better than others bothers me- I don't like it. There should never be a "best choice", only the best choice for the moment.
Now before anyone accuses me of ignoring "heal from zero"- I assure you, I'm not. But if my Fighter took 30 damage and fell down, a healing spell that does less than 30 us not going to prevent him from falling down again- some other defensive option needs to be employed, which now has the party using up two actions to deal with one Attack action. If the party outnumbers their foes, that's not too bad, but if they don't...
One system is called "heroic effort". It's described as digging deep into your reserves of strength, a surge of adrenaline, the occasional ability for someone to perform feats that far exceed their normal capacity- the hysterical strength that allows a mother to lift a car off her child.
Another is called "call upon faith". It's described as letting of one's ego and calling upon the supernatural for succor in a time of need- the power inherent to faith, or actually calling upon a divine (or infernal) entity.
Now, one could say that there's no real difference here- both are abilities a character could employ, which are controlled by the player- the player decides that this moment is when their character enjoys a burst of power or gives in and prays to an uncaring deity.
However, one has both a roleplaying element and a described action that needs be taken- uttering a pray or oath, falling to one's knees, steepling one's hands, whichever.
Some people will view the second ability more favorably in that it's the result of something occurring in-universe, despite the fact that both are abilities invoked by the player.
If a game lets you spend an "action point" to do a thing, we can certainly make up a fiction as to what's going on, but it's still a resource that most people can't call upon at will, yet the player can decide the when and where.
If a game lets you "cast a spell", the fiction is known- the character performs an action in game, one that is usable at the will of the character.
How fine a line between either ability exists is dependent on the observer- if one feels that the narrative is more important than the mechanics, they might favor one above the other.
If the reverse is true, and you believe the mechanics that govern the game are more important than the narrative, you might not see a difference at all!
I use "might" here for a reason- these are two extremes, and there's a lot of middle ground, based on how a person thinks or what their experiences are. For example, take the crossbow.
Some people might look at the crossbow's mechanics and question why the weapon is better at lower levels, as it does slightly more damage, but the instant someone gets the Extra Attack feature, it requires specialized training to compete with the bow. They might come to the conclusion that the weapon needs to be fixed in some way so that both bows and crossbows are competitive options.
Others, who has studied such weapons may feel that the bow is supposed to be a superior weapon in most respects, and the advantage of the crossbow is that it's easier to pick up and learn to use, and question why the heavy crossbow is a martial weapon in the first place, and see nothing wrong with the current iteration otherwise (and may houserule that all crossbows are, in fact, simple weapons).
Another person who has used both weapons might point out that the crossbow is lacking features it ought have- due to iron sights, it's a more accurate weapon than a bow, it can be fired from positions a bow cannot be, and so on and so forth, and add houserules to reflect that.
What gets these long running debates going is the fact that our individual preferences get in the way- some would much rather a game that closely hews with reality and aren't concerned with balanced mechanics- or any mechanics that get in the way of such things!
Some options are better than others in reality, so it should be for the game. If a fire spell doesn't say it ignites objects, too bad, if you're in a bakery, that flour is going up!
Others think the game rules should be functional and balanced, even if that means "realism" has to take a back seat from time to time- D&D, as a game, is full of these, long since enshrined. While some of us accept that, others only tolerate it- sure, the nature of initiative and turn order is an abstraction, but if it results in bizarre or illogical results, they might feel that these should be ignored in the favor of the narrative, even if everything is working as intended.
And that's where this whole sub-discussion lies. Yes, it's demonstrably true that player characters have access to knowledge a "real person" (for lack of a better term) might not. And the resources they employ can be both internal (the character has access to them routinely) or external (only the player can invoke them). But in both cases...it's still the player's decision, even if it might not be the character's decision.
The designers of 5e do not apparently take this into account. If a Fighter uses their Action Surge or Second Wind, the game doesn't tell us if the character is doing something to invoke these powers, or if they represent something outside their control.
Whereas swinging a sword, performing a combat maneuver, or casting a spell are inherently actions the character is taking.
Sometimes it's both- in the case of the Battle Master ability I posted upthread, the character is doing something- they are sizing up an enemy by observing them. But the information gleaned, couched in game mechanics, doesn't necessarily imply that the Battle Master knows what a Dexterity score or a Fighter level are- only that these things correlate to something the character can understand. What that is, the game doesn't consider important, or at least, more important than giving the player relevant information.
A narrative explanation can be made, and this can be described and roleplayed, but that's on the people playing and running the game- the mechanics care not.
Whether this is a good or bad thing has been debated for decades, and never will be settled.
----
Now, back to healing power creep! Whether increased healing is good or bad is based on a few factors, including, but not limited to:
1- is having more "uptime", where characters are able to make actions in the game more important than "downtime", where characters are unable to act. Characters at positive hit points usually can act, characters who are dying usually cannot. Most conditions in the game impose penalties on actions or prevent them outright. Some feel they should be used sparingly, so that the amount of time players are unable to actually play the game is minimal, while others feel that them's the breaks.
2- if players really want to cast healing spells before players go down. Some players like the support role and would rather have more efficient healing spells. Others would rather do anything at all but heal their fallen allies. A Light or Storm Cleric might be happiest blasting enemies and will grumble at having to cast an emergency healing word- they're not going to really care much whether said spell heals 1d4 or 2d4, unless the difference is enough to ensure they won't be forced to heal you again next turn.
3- how often and common short rests are. While the healing resources given to characters in 5e are significant, if you can't stop to rest when you need to, you have to rely on magical healing more. If you can't access healing surges, they basically don't exist, and it's not insane to think that something needs to take up the slack. On the other hand, if characters are always resting, then they really don't need more healing outside of combat.
4- the prevalence of healing spells in the game. Somewhat related to point 2, but it's important to note that groups vary. A group with one Cleric, two Clerics, or no Clerics (or Bards, Druids, etc. etc.) will play very differently. The amount of potential resources that can be used to heal cannot be understated here! A group with no magical healing doesn't care about more efficient healing spells- unless I missed hearing it, it's not like healing potions heal more hit points in 2024- the only change is that they can be used as a bonus action, which is a potential buff to action economy, but I can tell you having used this rule for much of this year, only to a point, since WotC absolutely adores giving some characters other uses for that action!
A group with two Clerics and a Druid are less likely to need this buff than the party with one. I don't think WotC expects the "default" adventuring party (if there is such a thing) to have more than one character with healing spells, and that no doubt plays a large role in why healing spells are buffed.
5- encounter difficulty. Some enemies hit like a truck. The CR 1 Brown Bear can deal almost 30 hit points in a turn. This is, of course, limited by their chance to hit, but as enemies grow stronger, so too does their accuracy and damage output (generally speaking). If a campaign consists of a few "marquee fights" with strong enemies or many smaller combats per session, will affect how much "burst" healing you need at the moment.
I argued in the past that if a character is taking 30 damage in a round, then a max-level healing spell has to exceed that damage to be worth that action. I know a lot of people disagree with that notion, but the simple truth is, healing is not helping you win an encounter as efficiently as damaging or disabling enemies. As an MtG player might say, healing is just "losing slower".
D&D has this interesting scenario where damage spells are not terribly efficient at dispatching foes- CR 1 foes who might survive an 8d6 fireball exist, for example. But somehow, healing spells don't even keep pace with damaging spells, let alone with incoming damage!
Now some might prefer the offense beats defense paradigm, as it leads towards faster, deadlier combats. And you know what, if that works for you, great! But the idea that a character can select one of several strategies, but some are just generally better than others bothers me- I don't like it. There should never be a "best choice", only the best choice for the moment.
Now before anyone accuses me of ignoring "heal from zero"- I assure you, I'm not. But if my Fighter took 30 damage and fell down, a healing spell that does less than 30 us not going to prevent him from falling down again- some other defensive option needs to be employed, which now has the party using up two actions to deal with one Attack action. If the party outnumbers their foes, that's not too bad, but if they don't...
