Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8609936" data-attributes="member: 20564">&quot;Prevention is healing&quot; is a bit of a topic.&nbsp; Is Shield of Faith healing since you get hit less?&nbsp; Is Bless as it increases your saves?&nbsp; Is massive damage healing as foes who are dead don't take actions?&nbsp; (Which brings back to is Bless healing a second time.)My focus was on healing-as-healing.&nbsp; I like how in 5e everything comes together - that produces a game I enjoy playing.&nbsp; That does not mean Healing is on-par if it wasn't propped up by other rules and subsystems.There's an active thread right now about the Twilight Cleric being OP.&nbsp; A big part of that is that the economy of tHP granting is too good.&nbsp; How did we get there from a design viewpoint?&nbsp; That's pretty straightforward.Temp HP aren't protected by the heal-from-zero rule AND tHP have the additional limitation that they don't stack.&nbsp; So in order for actions &amp; resources to be worthwhile to spend on tHP during a combat, tHP need to be inherently on-par with other actions.&nbsp; And we can see that yes, in general the abilities that give them out in-combat (as opposed to long-lasting ones that are more equivalent to out-of-combat healing) are generally better than healing using the same action and resources.I don't quite agree with this.&nbsp; I don't want to get too much into earlier editions that had different design goals, but 4e and 3.x both had a lot more Damage Resist X around.&nbsp; With 5e moving toward a single unified Resist, it's not as common for the PCs except on the curious case of the Barbarian.I like how everything comes together in 5e - I think that taking all of the systems together, including prevention, gives a fun game.&nbsp; The point I am making is that without other rules propping it up, in-combat healing is weak.&nbsp; We see from practical experience in games that it is often not worth the action unless it has the extra bonus of standing up/clearing death saves from a downed character.&nbsp; And part of that is that there are other methods that are more effective in keeping characters up, from prevention like tHP or bonuses to defenses, to action denial, to killing foes.&nbsp; As 5e is right now it doesn't need in-combat healing to be more effective, but that does not change that it is weak as shows by it not being taken often as a pro-active action, but as a reactive action when it will definitively have the extra perks of standing someone up, including &quot;free healing&quot; of the amount of damage they would have been down below zero if that was tracked.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 8609936, member: 20564"] "Prevention is healing" is a bit of a topic. Is Shield of Faith healing since you get hit less? Is Bless as it increases your saves? Is massive damage healing as foes who are dead don't take actions? (Which brings back to is Bless healing a second time.) My focus was on healing-as-healing. I like how in 5e everything comes together - that produces a game I enjoy playing. That does not mean Healing is on-par if it wasn't propped up by other rules and subsystems. There's an active thread right now about the Twilight Cleric being OP. A big part of that is that the economy of tHP granting is too good. How did we get there from a design viewpoint? That's pretty straightforward. Temp HP aren't protected by the heal-from-zero rule AND tHP have the additional limitation that they don't stack. So in order for actions & resources to be worthwhile to spend on tHP during a combat, tHP need to be inherently on-par with other actions. And we can see that yes, in general the abilities that give them out in-combat (as opposed to long-lasting ones that are more equivalent to out-of-combat healing) are generally better than healing using the same action and resources. I don't quite agree with this. I don't want to get too much into earlier editions that had different design goals, but 4e and 3.x both had a lot more Damage Resist X around. With 5e moving toward a single unified Resist, it's not as common for the PCs except on the curious case of the Barbarian. I like how everything comes together in 5e - I think that taking all of the systems together, including prevention, gives a fun game. The point I am making is that without other rules propping it up, in-combat healing is weak. We see from practical experience in games that it is often not worth the action unless it has the extra bonus of standing up/clearing death saves from a downed character. And part of that is that there are other methods that are more effective in keeping characters up, from prevention like tHP or bonuses to defenses, to action denial, to killing foes. As 5e is right now it doesn't need in-combat healing to be more effective, but that does not change that it is weak as shows by it not being taken often as a pro-active action, but as a reactive action when it will definitively have the extra perks of standing someone up, including "free healing" of the amount of damage they would have been down below zero if that was tracked. [/QUOTE]

Verification