Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7134468" data-attributes="member: 20564">I tend to find that my players are risk-adverse and will spend hours over-planning and over thinking, so I'm for anything that makes them more willing to act.A point in 5e is that the players are right.&nbsp; With the exception of mass-healing with multiple wounded comrades, for the most part pre-emptive healing is less effective then an attack.&nbsp; A dead foe does no damage, while most healing offsets less than equivalent actions on the other side spent to wound.&nbsp; (Equivalent actions - what I mean is if a PC's action is 20% of their actions for the round (for a 5 man group), then 20% of foe actions.)&nbsp; Pop-up healing gets them back to act, sometimes without having lost an action at all depending on the initiative of the dropping attack, the healer, and the fallen character.(Note: there are always corner cases.&nbsp; I played through SKT with a fantastic life cleric pre-emptive healer, but we were good at spreading giant damage out among us so his mass-heals were super effective.)Minutes spent coming back from zero means that you can death spiral - lose a character early to a crit or failed save and then the encounter is mroe deadly, leading to more down that can't get back up, etc.&nbsp; It also penalizes characters who are protecting the rest as they are more likely to get hit and go down since they are putting themselves into the fray.And really, not all of your characters are likely able to heal effectively, so if you change the rules you're really just penalizing the players who have already chosen to play characters that can support other PCs.&nbsp; That seems contrary to what I want at a meta level.So between the first (already over cautious) and last (force support-capable PCs into an even more support role) points, I see reasons why I'm okay with it as is at my table.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7134468, member: 20564"] I tend to find that my players are risk-adverse and will spend hours over-planning and over thinking, so I'm for anything that makes them more willing to act. A point in 5e is that the players are right. With the exception of mass-healing with multiple wounded comrades, for the most part pre-emptive healing is less effective then an attack. A dead foe does no damage, while most healing offsets less than equivalent actions on the other side spent to wound. (Equivalent actions - what I mean is if a PC's action is 20% of their actions for the round (for a 5 man group), then 20% of foe actions.) Pop-up healing gets them back to act, sometimes without having lost an action at all depending on the initiative of the dropping attack, the healer, and the fallen character. (Note: there are always corner cases. I played through SKT with a fantastic life cleric pre-emptive healer, but we were good at spreading giant damage out among us so his mass-heals were super effective.) Minutes spent coming back from zero means that you can death spiral - lose a character early to a crit or failed save and then the encounter is mroe deadly, leading to more down that can't get back up, etc. It also penalizes characters who are protecting the rest as they are more likely to get hit and go down since they are putting themselves into the fray. And really, not all of your characters are likely able to heal effectively, so if you change the rules you're really just penalizing the players who have already chosen to play characters that can support other PCs. That seems contrary to what I want at a meta level. So between the first (already over cautious) and last (force support-capable PCs into an even more support role) points, I see reasons why I'm okay with it as is at my table. [/QUOTE]

Verification