D&D 5E Healing

[DEFCON 1]

Will NPCs be throwing out 40D6 meteor swarms (140 points of damage) at level 17 when the PCs have 100 to 250 hit points? How about if it is a Sorcerer with metamagic like Heightened or Quickened and they throw out another high level damaging spell simultaneously? If so, the game could end real quick.

Will most every player be taking the Tough feat, just because they lose one third to two thirds of their hit points in the first round of combat several times a day when facing enemy casters?


I definitely get what you are saying. But 5E monsters appear to be able to cast the same spells that PCs can (based on the stat blocks we have seen so far). Whenever that happens and a PC spell is a bit too good, it's a bit too good for the monsters as well.

What happens when the high level monsters start casting Mass Heal?

If you think this is going to be an issue in your games, then why are you giving your NPCs Meteor Swarm and Mass Heal in the first place?

You're speaking as though you have no control over what your NPCs will have available. You're the DM. You control what spells they have (if any) and you control how they are used. This is part of the reason why monsters are no longer built like PCs but are given their own unique abilities-- so that those abilities are designed and balanced against what the PCs will have. And I would be very surprised if any monster in the upcoming Monster Manual will have 9th level spells available in their statblock just because of the potential unbalancing unless the rest of the monster's block has been designed to compensate for them.

We're not going to see any monster or NPC in the MM that looks exactly like a 20th level Wizard (with all 22 Wizard slots available to it). And that was done purposefully as part of their design paradigm. So for DMs to deliberately go against that paradigm and build their NPCs as PCs in the expectation they will fight the PCs means they're going to have adjust their combats accordingly. Does that mean needing to have the 20th level Wizard NPC "fight dumb" to avoid killing the PCs? Perhaps. Or do the PCs at the table have to accept the DMs credo that whatever's good for the goose is good for the gander? Perhaps. But in any event, it's the DMs choice and decision to play the game in that fashion, and accept the consequences of that decision accordingly. But you can't then go blaming WotC for "allowing" it to happen.

It's not their job to save a DM from his or herself.

 

[variant]

Well, Mass Healing Word is a 3rd level spell, not a 1st level spell. So, it could be cast 12 to 15 times depending on caster level, not 22.


I really do not understand the point of allowing boosted spells to be increased linearly if the higher level spells are going to be increased exponentially. That throws the entire bounded accuracy concept out the window. Increased fighter attacks are linear. Increased Rogue damage is linear. Increased hit points is linear.

You can compare Fireball at 12d6 20' radius to the Meteor Swarm as well.

Bounded accuracy has nothing to do with damage. It's about attacks, ability checks, and saving throws.

Will NPCs be throwing out 40D6 meteor swarms (140 points of damage) at level 17 when the PCs have 100 to 250 hit points? How about if it is a Sorcerer with metamagic like Heightened or Quickened and they throw out another high level damaging spell simultaneously? If so, the game could end real quick.

Will most every player be taking the Tough feat, just because they lose one third to two thirds of their hit points in the first round of combat several times a day when facing enemy casters?


I definitely get what you are saying. But 5E monsters appear to be able to cast the same spells that PCs can (based on the stat blocks we have seen so far). Whenever that happens and a PC spell is a bit too good, it's a bit too good for the monsters as well.

What happens when the high level monsters start casting Mass Heal?

I imagine many monsters like dragons will do worse things than Meteor Swarm.

 

[SkidAce]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] , I might have missed it, but y'all are taking into account that "Cure Wounds" is a standard action to cast, and "Healing Word" is a bonus action?

At least in Basic.

 

[Bryk]

@KarinsDad , I might have missed it, but y'all are taking into account that "Cure Wounds" is a standard action to cast, and "Healing Word" is a bonus action?

At least in Basic.

On that note, I do want to mention that I do love that with bonus actions, you can still use a cantrip with them. So it does make the weaker healing word an option, especially if you are willing to spend your spell slots.

 

[KarinsDad]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] , I might have missed it, but y'all are taking into account that "Cure Wounds" is a standard action to cast, and "Healing Word" is a bonus action?

At least in Basic.

Sure. And, Healing Word has range. And Healing Word has no somatic component (which is helpful for those PCs who use weapon and shield). But is that enough to justify a 33% decrease in healing in player's minds?


I suspect that unlike 4E, my players will almost never heal in combat in 5E since Cure Wounds is an action and Healing Word does a crappy heal.

There are times when a player will use one of these in combat, but I suspect that it will be few and far between. It is more important to use the action to attack a foe, and/or to save the spell for more total healing after combat.

Only if a PC goes unconscious would I suspect that in combat heals will typically be done at my table.

 

[Bryk]

Sure. And, Healing Word has range. And Healing Word has no somatic component (which is helpful for those PCs who use weapon and shield). But is that enough to justify a 33% decrease in healing in player's minds?


I suspect that unlike 4E, my players will almost never heal in combat in 5E since Cure Wounds is an action and Healing Word does a crappy heal.

There are times when a player will use one of these in combat, but I suspect that it will be few and far between. It is more important to use the action to attack a foe, and/or to save the spell for more total healing after combat.

Only if a PC goes unconscious would I suspect that in combat heals will typically be done at my table.

You must not make things challenging enough that heals are required if you feel your players can go start to end without any healing.

 

[KarinsDad]

You must not make things challenging enough that heals are required if you feel your players can go start to end without any healing.

Go read some of the other healing threads. A lot of people think that in combat healing will be more of an exception than a rule in 5E. It never happened once in our Starter Set game except for when PCs when unconscious.

Healing is a suboptimal choice in many circumstances in 5E. It's just the nature of the beast. Don't take my word for it. Start your own thread and ask the question.

 

[Tony Vargas]

it almost feels like this is a waste of a spell slot - let alone the horribly inefficient waste of an action.

The thing that I'm finding difficult to comprehend is why they toned magical healing so far down, when they've turned natural healing so far up​.

Maybe don't think of it in terms of natural vs magical but as resource vs rest?

5e was, according to Mike Mearls in an L&L, and he's never modified the stance, being balanced around a specific day length (in encounters & rounds). It's workable, if the DM and players don't deviate from the prescribed schedule. Overnight healing is one of the things that keeps the game on that schedule. Making healing magic 'weaker' may well be intended as another - thus the 'waste' issue you mention.

If healing magic is powerful, there may be a temptation to actually use it frequently, which would /extend/ the length of the day, imbalancing the game against the casters - /at the cost of a caster resource/. By making magical healing an obviously bad choice, 5e encourages casters to refrain from it, and keep days short enough for them to remain competitive.

In that sense, it's making a caster option less powerful, so casters will stay more powerful, overall.

Now that I think about it, it could also be that HD are meant to encourage the otherwise onerous and improbable-seeming, hour-long short rest be taken 1/day, so that classes, like the Wizard and Fighter, who recharge something on a short rest will actually see it recharged more often than long-rest-recharge abilities.


It really does look like healing has been well-thought-out to help coerce the necessary day length, and thus help prevent the game from being played in other ways. An interesting design decision, given the stated goals of 5e.

 

[Bryk]

Go read some of the other healing threads. A lot of people think that in combat healing will be more of an exception than a rule in 5E. It never happened once in our Starter Set game except for when PCs when unconscious.

Healing is a suboptimal choice in many circumstances in 5E. It's just the nature of the beast. Don't take my word for it. Start your own thread and ask the question.

If you are referring to the starter set, I'm in a group that is half way through it. Yes if you prepare extensively, and plan accordingly and outwit the tough encounters you can slide by. We did for awhile without a healer. I feel the starter set isn't particularly challenging, I didn't look at the DM aspect in terms of what the rated difficulty for each encounter is, but I can assure you from a player standpoint I haven't found one that is out of the norm. Sure bugbears can hit hard when they hit, however it isn't that simple.

To make a blanket statement that healing is "suboptimal", is quite foolish. Yes, healing is weaker than it was. Yes sometimes it makes sense to kill the opponent with your action than it does to heal a companion. However I feel it comes down to a balanced scenario now. Before it was a no brainer, especially for a life cleric to not even think, just heal. Now it might make sense to attack. It is not however as simple as, "well I'll just save my heal slots for after combat".

It is not always a sub optimal choice, it strikes a balance where players actually have to think, and I like it.

 

[KarinsDad]

To make a blanket statement that healing is "suboptimal", is quite foolish.

I didn't say it was suboptimal. I said it was suboptimal choice in many circumstances. There are occasions where it makes sense to do so. But, they are fewer and further between than in 4E.

Yes, healing is weaker than it was.

Actually, 5E healing is stronger than it was in 1E through 3.5. 4E is the outlier.

Yes sometimes it makes sense to kill the opponent with your action than it does to heal a companion. However I feel it comes down to a balanced scenario now. Before it was a no brainer, especially for a life cleric to not even think, just heal.

It was only a no brainer for players who did not put thought into their actions. Even in 4E, I often did not heal a fellow PC until that PC was either in single digit hit points (less often) or down (more often). It just ended up doing more overall healing and improving action economy in many cases.

This is not always the case, but it is often the case in 4E. It's more so in 5E. The games are too dissimilar to compare. 4E was a game where half or more of the party went bloodied within the first few rounds of a challenging encounter, but then as they started dropping more foes, action economy shifted to their advantage. The PC healer only had to keep the PCs alive until the momentum of the encounter changed.

5E is a game where most of the NPCs are 1 to 3 shot paper tigers. It's often like fighting minions or "tough minions" (i.e. 2 shot minions). The entire encounter can be over much faster because foes drop much faster. Hence, attacking is often a superior tactic to either defense or healing than it was in 4E.

Two different game designs result in different optimal tactics. Anyone who uses 4E healing tactics in 5E is probably going to be in for a bit of a shock when the party is out of healing in the third encounter.

Now it might make sense to attack. It is not however as simple as, "well I'll just save my heal slots for after combat".

Actually, it pretty much is. The number of situations where healing an injured PC is the most optimal choice should be somewhat limited in 5E. In fact, the number of situations where healing an unconscious PC is the most optimal choice will be a bit less in 5E than earlier versions due to how squishy (i.e. easy to hit and take out) the bad guys are.

It is not always a sub optimal choice, it strikes a balance where players actually have to think, and I like it.

Yup. Course, it tends to be a bit of a no brainer to not heal in 5E in many situations. Who cares if the wizard just went down when there are only two similar level foes remaining? Getting the wizard up means that he can attack on the next turn and the net gain was the same number of attacks when the foes will probably be down in a single round or two. Healing the unconscious wizard also might mean that a smart NPC comes over and melee attacks the prone wizard with advantage. If the wizard was important enough to heal, then the prone wizard is important enough to attack. Pros and Cons to all choices.


There are always exceptions to any rule of thumb.

Sure, you can use Healing Word at level one to heal a PC up 5 hit points. And, that might be enough to keep that PC up (or get the PC up). But at the end of the encounter, it just means that the extra few points of healing from that same spell slot with a Cure Wounds in it is now no longer a party resource.

Granted, healing has always been the one aspect of the game where the PCs have a significant advantage over NPCs, it's just that doing so in combat is back to the 3E days of healing (i.e. throw the biggest heal you have in an emergency situation, or don't bother until after combat).