D&D 5E Healing in 5E

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure, but it isn't a trap to heal people. Which was the point I was trying to make. You just don't want to do it at every opportunity you get. I like decision points like that, where you don't always want to use power/spell/ability x.

Not sure you get it, Blackbrrd. It was a decision to heal in 4E, too, which appears to be the point of comparison. You had decision points like you say. You didn't always want to do it.

But it was weighted very differently, so the decision was more in favour of keeping people up (than 5E), where here it's more in favour of letting people drop at lower levels, then may gradually come round to being in favour of keeping them up as levels increase.

Also note that in the October Playtest, 5E was much more favourable to keeping people up, because heals were bigger, and going down more risky.

Btw, when you go down, you drop your stuff and fall prone. A smart enemy would probably take a free action to kick your weapon away after dropping you. If that happened often, it would probably be smarter to keep people up than to save on the hp due to the heal-from-zero rule.

That's a free action? Really? Interesting.

It seems likely only an enemy who was both very smart AND expected PCs to get back up would do it, though, and a thus a bit unlikely in most games. Also all you're really doing is training the players than unless they blow resources to try to keep people up, they're going to be extra-punished!

 

[jadrax]

That's a free action? Really? Interesting.

'You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.'

So it is a fair use, if you have not interacted with anything else (drawing your sword for example).

That said, its wrong and somewhat confusing to call it a 'Free Action', and the GM is free to say you can't do it if he feels there would be too much effort involved. (I would not let you move up to someone and draw there sword for free before they could for example).

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, but it isn't a trap to heal people. Which was the point I was trying to make. You just don't want to do it at every opportunity you get. I like decision points like that, where you don't always want to use power/spell/ability x.

Btw, when you go down, you drop your stuff and fall prone. A smart enemy would probably take a free action to kick your weapon away after dropping you. If that happened often, it would probably be smarter to keep people up than to save on the hp due to the heal-from-zero rule.

In 5E from what I can tell, a smart enemy has to have an action or movement available to kick the weapon away. Free actions in 5E are effectively part of either your action, or your movement. So yes, a foe could kick the weapon away if he has any part of his movement remaining after he downs a PC. But he usually couldn't do that if he had either used up his total movement, or if he had attacked from range. So it might happen, but it might not.

As for dropping your stuff, picking it back up again as part of your movement to stand up is legitimate as well. Plus I suspect that most players of melee PCs I know will have multiple weapons available (one piercing, one bludgeoning, one or more ranged, and one slashing). There are quite a few monsters that are resistant to one type to stick to one weapon. Stand up and pull out a different weapon.


With regard to healing being a trap, nobody is stating that it is every single time. And by trap, we mean that it is often a sub-optimal choice, not that it is the worst choice possible.

In 4E, the times when healing is a sub-optimal choice is less frequent than it will be in 5E (since it often required using a minor action that did not hinder the standard action too much). I gave an example earlier in this thread of when healing was sub-optimal in 4E. It happened then too.

But just by the ways the rules are set up, healing someone in 5E should be done judiciously. Healing really is for after the combat when possible. Yes, there will be exceptions to the general rule here. But if the foes damage more than the heals heal, it can definitely be sub-optimal. On the other hand, it can also be a delaying tactic, allowing the rest of the party to finish off their foes and keeping one PC alive. It just depends on situation.

 

[Blackbrrd]

In 5E from what I can tell, a smart enemy has to have an action or movement available to kick the weapon away. Free actions in 5E are effectively part of either your action, or your movement. So yes, a foe could kick the weapon away if he has any part of his movement remaining after he downs a PC. But he usually couldn't do that if he had either used up his total movement, or if he had attacked from range. So it might happen, but it might not.

As for dropping your stuff, picking it back up again as part of your movement to stand up is legitimate as well. Plus I suspect that most players of melee PCs I know will have multiple weapons available (one piercing, one bludgeoning, one or more ranged, and one slashing). There are quite a few monsters that are resistant to one type to stick to one weapon. Stand up and pull out a different weapon.


With regard to healing being a trap, nobody is stating that it is every single time. And by trap, we mean that it is often a sub-optimal choice, not that it is the worst choice possible.

In 4E, the times when healing is a sub-optimal choice is less frequent than it will be in 5E (since it often required using a minor action that did not hinder the standard action too much). I gave an example earlier in this thread of when healing was sub-optimal in 4E. It happened then too.

But just by the ways the rules are set up, healing someone in 5E should be done judiciously. Healing really is for after the combat when possible. Yes, there will be exceptions to the general rule here. But if the foes damage more than the heals heal, it can definitely be sub-optimal. On the other hand, it can also be a delaying tactic, allowing the rest of the party to finish off their foes and keeping one PC alive. It just depends on situation.

I have no problem with your arguments, I just don't find any problem with the way healing works in 5e. The (mass) healing word spell is a form of healing that really reminds me of 4e, and although not very powerful, you just spend a spell slot on it, not your action, so the opportunity cost isn't too high in my opinion.

 

[Blackbrrd]

'You can also interact with one object or feature of the environment for free, during either your move or your action.'

So it is a fair use, if you have not interacted with anything else (drawing your sword for example).

That said, its wrong and somewhat confusing to call it a 'Free Action', and the GM is free to say you can't do it if he feels there would be too much effort involved. (I would not let you move up to someone and draw there sword for free before they could for example).

Isn't drawing your sword explicitly mentioned as an example of what you can do as a "free" action?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Isn't drawing your sword explicitly mentioned as an example of what you can do as a "free" action?

He's saying drawing SOMEONE ELSE'S sword, which seems similar to your "kick away" example. Obviously one doesn't have to agree that it's the same, but I think getting to kick away enemy weapons for free, even 1/turn, could get pretty cheesy pretty quick. YMMV etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

He's saying drawing SOMEONE ELSE'S sword, which seems similar to your "kick away" example. Obviously one doesn't have to agree that it's the same, but I think getting to kick away enemy weapons for free, even 1/turn, could get pretty cheesy pretty quick. YMMV etc.

I don't know about cheesy, but it is part of the rules.

This is like Coup De Grace. Sure, 4E players used it once in a blue moon. But it is really a rule for DMs to use. If a player wants an NPC dead, he just kills him with the attack (the exception being important NPCs that the DM wants to give a chance to save). Coup De Grace an important NPC makes sure that he dies. But it's not really a rule for players to use a lot.

Same with kicking away an enemies weapon in 5E. Sure, once in a blue moon, a PC might do that, especially on a foe that he just made unconscious and wants to question later. But this particular tactic is really for the NPCs. Granted, PCs shouldn't be falling unconscious every single encounter, enemies shouldn't have the opportunity to kick away a weapon every single time a PC falls, nor should they even try unless they have reason to believe that the downed PC might be getting back up.

It might occur once in a while, but I doubt it will occur in most games often enough to be considered cheesy. Even so like I mentioned earlier, most melee PCs in 5E should be carrying multiple melee weapons (P, S, B), so they should just stand up and thwart the NPC by pulling out a different weapon.

Fred the Fighter: "Ha, ha. You thought I needed a longsword to take care of you? This mace will bash in your skull just as well."

I'm not seeing the cheesiness factor here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't know about cheesy, but it is part of the rules.

This is like Coup De Grace. Sure, 4E players used it once in a blue moon. But it is really a rule for DMs to use. If a player wants an NPC dead, he just kills him with the attack (the exception being important NPCs that the DM wants to give a chance to save). Coup De Grace an important NPC makes sure that he dies. But it's not really a rule for players to use a lot.

What?

CdG is used pretty much exclusively by players. I've literally never seen or heard of it being used by an NPC.

Even so like I mentioned earlier, most melee PCs in 5E should be carrying multiple melee weapons (P, S, B), so they should just stand up and thwart the NPC by pulling out a different weapon.

Fred the Fighter: "Ha, ha. You thought I needed a longsword to take care of you? This mace will bash in your skull just as well."

I'm not seeing the cheesiness factor here.

That example seems like an extra slice of cheese on the cheese!

 

[Emerikol]

I can't find anyone in this thread saying "always", only "usually", which you seem to agree with. Maybe I am missing something?

As for frontage, the problem with that is that the Cleric is the second-toughest PC in melee, in a normal 4-person, 1 class each Basic party. If you have lots of Fighters or the like, hanging back makes sense, but I dunno how common that is (even with the Starter Set, which has two Fighters, the Cleric is pretty much second-toughest, IIRC).

I think "usually" would depend upon your group though as you say.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the bad guys are not hitting frequently. It's not inconceivable that the fighter and cleric have good enough ACs that the enemy is only hitting like 20%. In that case it makes sense for the cleric even in battle to heal the fighter if the fighter is down far enough that he could be one shotted dead or even dropped below zero. So if he is down to 3 hit points then it's reasonable the cleric would heal the fighter only to keep the fighter attacking which is better than the cleric doing so in most cases.

I would say though that short of really needing to heal someone that you would never do it in combat. Cure Wounds gives you more bang for the buck right? So just wait until the battle is over if you can.

I am only disputing the notion that healing in combat is a trap option. A trap option is one that is bad. It's not good 30% of the time and bad 70% of the time. If it is situationally good then it's not a trap option.

 

[KarinsDad]

What?

CdG is used pretty much exclusively by players. I've literally never seen or heard of it being used by an NPC.

Yes, it is used by PCs when a foe is asleep or some such. I had forgotten about that since it has occurred so infrequently in our games.

But if you have never had the reoccurring villain CDG a PC, then your DM should hand his Rat Bastard card back in.

That example seems like an extra slice of cheese on the cheese!

I know my players. When they find out that you need a mace to be more effective against skeletons and a silvered weapon against werecreatures, they will carry both. Some PCs will have one of each type they can find, regardless of whether they use them often or not.

It's not being cheesy in a 5E world, it's being practical.