D&D 5E Healing in 5E

[Emerikol]

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

Any smart NPC in my campaign would CdG a downed PC. I use the normal D&D CdG rules if you have another PC within 5 feet. Otherwise it's automatic death. When I know I could kill someone lying on the ground with relative ease especially with a weapon, then I figure a trained killer who slays dragons can do it.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

This is where you and I disagree. Playing the PC cleric, I would almost never heal the PC fighter at 3 hit points unless he was swarmed by foes or some such. It would be rare for me to do so. It's a waste of my time to do so when I could be taking out or seriously wounding a foe instead.

I typically do not find that a reasonable time to heal the fighter, especially with the 5E healing rules (a better argument can be made for the 4E healing rules).

By healing, I am:

1) Using up a heal resource that might not be immediately needed.
2) Using up a heal resource where I do not get the bonus extra healing of the negative hit points that are ignored in the attack that drops the foe.
3) Not attempting to damage a foe with my action.
4) Having one fewer heal resource in case some other PC falls unconscious.
5) A dropped PC can somtimes be healed after he drops without losing his action for the turn.
6) And one of the most overlooked and important reasons, not healing your fellow PCs in combat will teach them to be a bit more cautious. If players know that the PC Cleric is stingey with in combat heals, they will do fewer stupid things. It's one thing to be heroic, it's another to do something totally stupid because you know someone will heal you if you screw up.

By healing, I am automatically not using my action to damage the enemies. It's not the same as losing my action for the turn, but it's not that far off from it.

Yeah, healing in combat pretty much sounds suboptimal in the vast majority of scenarios. 4E has trained players to heal a lot. 5E is a different set of mechanics with different optimal tactics.

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.

This seems to be a bit of semantics. From my POV, healing in combat that interfers with the healers other actions is something that might be down 10% of the time. Or 20%. It would be the exception instead of the rule because it will typically waste more resources than it does saving resources. Hence, suboptimal most of the time. If you are insisting that the word trap means that it is always bad, then I guess we should use the phrase often suboptimal.

 

[KarinsDad]

Any smart NPC in my campaign would CdG a downed PC. I use the normal D&D CdG rules if you have another PC within 5 feet. Otherwise it's automatic death. When I know I could kill someone lying on the ground with relative ease especially with a weapon, then I figure a trained killer who slays dragons can do it.

I typically wait until the smart NPCs become aware of PC healing, but yeah. This.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

I don't play with RBDMs, generally speaking, because IME, they aren't interested in providing a good game, solely in impressing upon you how much a jerk they are. As an adult, I have better things to do than hang out with people keen to prove themselves jerks.

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.

That's not what I'm talking about though, is it?

I'm talking about you having these NPCs being routinely smart enough to know to kick away a weapon, and that costing no actions and requiring no roll, and PCs equally all carrying multiple weapons and being able to both stand up AND draw their weapon AND to attack in the same turn at no penalty.

It's RAW, I agree (except the kick-away, that's DM's call), but RAW doesn't mean it doesn't seem cheesy!

FWIW I actually like PCs who bother to bring the right weapon for the right job, but the fact that it painlessly invalidates the kick-away just makes the whole scenario even more slap-stick-ish/cartoony!

 

[Emerikol]

Yeah, healing in combat pretty much sounds suboptimal in the vast majority of scenarios. 4E has trained players to heal a lot. 5E is a different set of mechanics with different optimal tactics.

I believe healing is more like it was in 1e/2e actually. The only difference might be the notion that since you can rest overnight and recovery all hit points you have to consider that dynamic.

This seems to be a bit of semantics. From my POV, healing in combat that interfers with the healers other actions is something that might be down 10% of the time. Or 20%. It would be the exception instead of the rule because it will typically waste more resources than it does saving resources. Hence, suboptimal most of the time. If you are insisting that the word trap means that it is always bad, then I guess we should use the phrase often suboptimal.

I would agree that it is often suboptimal. So perhaps we agree. I also agree that players who are stupid should not be rewarded for it. I don't see a lot of that in my games anymore but I've seen it in the past.

I did review the rules and apparently there is no penalty at all for going to negative hit points. That is probably a bad thing in my book.

Still we can agree that a fighter whose turn is after yours who goes down before your turn, is a very good candidate for healing. Once healed he becomes a blocker again. While down he is in greater danger of getting killed (mostly at low levels). You don't want the enemy pouring past you and onto the squishies. So that is not an uncommon case.

 

[Emerikol]

I typically wait until the smart NPCs become aware of PC healing, but yeah. This.

I agree. If the enemy though is high level I expect him or her to know things. But sure against the town guard or a tribe of bugbears the odds are they won't bother with a downed party member until they've killed all the ones that are still fighting. Until that is they see healing in action as you say.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Any smart NPC in my campaign would CdG a downed PC. I use the normal D&D CdG rules if you have another PC within 5 feet. Otherwise it's automatic death. When I know I could kill someone lying on the ground with relative ease especially with a weapon, then I figure a trained killer who slays dragons can do it.

Based on this, I have to ask - how many PCs, Emerikol, have you actually killed with CdGs in your DM'ing career (which is, what 30+ years?)?

Because, unless this is a very new policy, or your groups pretty much never face "smart NPCs" I'd expect the number to be in the dozens, given that in 1E/2E, you could also CdG people who were affected by Hold Person and so on.

 

[Sadras]

Any smart NPC in my campaign would CdG a downed PC. I use the normal D&D CdG rules if you have another PC within 5 feet. Otherwise it's automatic death. When I know I could kill someone lying on the ground with relative ease especially with a weapon, then I figure a trained killer who slays dragons can do it.

This! Amazingly, at our table, it was used by an NPC 3-4 rounds after the PCs first used it on a BBEG who was under some heavy meditation/concentration effect. It dropped our poor Paladin quick-quick, easy to do with a Fighter NPC.

 

[Emerikol]

Based on this, I have to ask - how many PCs, Emerikol, have you actually killed with CdGs in your DM'ing career (which is, what 30+ years?)?

Because, unless this is a very new policy, or your groups pretty much never face "smart NPCs" I'd expect the number to be in the dozens, given that in 1E/2E, you could also CdG people who were affected by Hold Person and so on.

The group CdG's dozens of people. A few times when fighting amongst themselves they CdG'd one of their own. Otherwise, not that often. Not dozens for sure. My groups are very good players. They also know with certainty that enemies willl CdG so they defend their own as much as possible. Still I'm sure it occurred on occasion.

I get labeled because of my preferences as a killer DM but I'm not. I'm a hard DM. I've had to be to keep my players challenged.

Years ago I was talking with another DM that ran in my opinion a monte haul campaign. He was teasing me that my group was only twelfth level and had been playing years longer than his group which had shot up to eighteenth level. The implication was that his group was somehow better. I told him that his group had mathematical levels but they lacked the genuine experience and skill to go with their high numbers. He challenged me to play the main BBEG in the next adventure his group went through with him as DM. Needless to say it was a TPK. I knew nothing about his players specific abilities either. I just played the BBEG as best I could to his ability.

No way my players at that level would have had the same outcome.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The group CdG's dozens of people. A few times when fighting amongst themselves they CdG'd one of their own. Otherwise, not that often. Not dozens for sure. My groups are very good players. They also know with certainty that enemies willl CdG so they defend their own as much as possible. Still I'm sure it occurred on occasion.

But you can't think of a single example?

As for "skill at D&D", no insult, but I've heard that sort of thing a lot from people who I've then played with and found actually they just had a very specific pattern of play that they used to deal with their usual DM, and that they couldn't handle other DMs the same way. Whether that's the case here, I can't say.