Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6337354" data-attributes="member: 996">True.&nbsp; /Less/ exponential.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp;&nbsp; Oddly, where 3e got this bit right with saves (sorta, saves scales with spell level, making low-level spells that granted saves less useful in combat at higher levels, they were just optimizable to too great a degree) and wrong with damage (scaled with CL), 5e got it right with damage (scales with slot) and wrong with saves (scales with proficiency, and the caster /always/ gets proficiency, while the target gets it only 1/3rd of the time).&nbsp; 5e combats are quicker because the the encounter guidelines and monsters are tuned that way - you fight fewer, weaker monsters in a standard 5e battle than in 4e, and everyone, monsters and PCs has vastly fewer hps.&nbsp; (At least, that's how it was in the playtest, if the monsters or encounters get beefed up enough, fights will be longer.)&nbsp; So, while you might or might not need to heal in a given combat, that's a side effect of the combat being over so fast because you rolled over the monsters, not a cause for the fight being over so quick.The only case in which not healing dropped allies (or pro-actively healing with minor- or bonus-actino heals to keep them from dropping and thus losing actions) speeds up a fight is the TPK.&nbsp;About like it was in 3e.&nbsp; Healing in combat wasn't a good idea unless it saved an ally from dropping, that ally's actions were worth more than yours, and you used one of your higher level spells to grant a /lot/ of healing that'd actually put you ahead of monters' damage output.&nbsp; The numbers are all smaller, but it's basically the same dynamic.&nbsp; Bonus-action healing tweaks that a little, but it's such a small amount of healing, I'm not sure it'll prove worth the slots.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6337354, member: 996"] True. /Less/ exponential. ;) Oddly, where 3e got this bit right with saves (sorta, saves scales with spell level, making low-level spells that granted saves less useful in combat at higher levels, they were just optimizable to too great a degree) and wrong with damage (scaled with CL), 5e got it right with damage (scales with slot) and wrong with saves (scales with proficiency, and the caster /always/ gets proficiency, while the target gets it only 1/3rd of the time). 5e combats are quicker because the the encounter guidelines and monsters are tuned that way - you fight fewer, weaker monsters in a standard 5e battle than in 4e, and everyone, monsters and PCs has vastly fewer hps. (At least, that's how it was in the playtest, if the monsters or encounters get beefed up enough, fights will be longer.) So, while you might or might not need to heal in a given combat, that's a side effect of the combat being over so fast because you rolled over the monsters, not a cause for the fight being over so quick. The only case in which not healing dropped allies (or pro-actively healing with minor- or bonus-actino heals to keep them from dropping and thus losing actions) speeds up a fight is the TPK. About like it was in 3e. Healing in combat wasn't a good idea unless it saved an ally from dropping, that ally's actions were worth more than yours, and you used one of your higher level spells to grant a /lot/ of healing that'd actually put you ahead of monters' damage output. The numbers are all smaller, but it's basically the same dynamic. Bonus-action healing tweaks that a little, but it's such a small amount of healing, I'm not sure it'll prove worth the slots. [/QUOTE]

Verification