Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6873779" data-attributes="member: 996">It varies with style and the level of challenge presented by combats.  It also varies with the action economy impact of the kind of healing available.  Spending an action to stabilize an ally, for instance, is, in that one round, assuming the ally is in no danger of dying /right then/, a bad deal, while spending a minor/bonus/swift action or immediate/reactions to get an ally back into a fight between the initiative count he was dropped and his next turn is well worth it.  In-combat healing in an fight with little risk of allies dropping is nearly pointless - if the fight carries a high risk of allies dropping, being killed, or the whole thing spiraling into a TPK, then it can be a necessity.  Probably the wrong way to look at it.  4e moved the resource burden of restoring hps almost entirely to the character suffering hp loss in the form of 'surges.'  Most surge-triggers still be magical (the Cleric's were the best), and magical non-surge healing was relatively rare, and very valuable.  4e also removed the bookkeeping of multi-day or between-adventure healing.  5e partially reversed that by returning some of the healing burden to traditional support-role casters, but mainly the in-combat portion of that burden.  It also essentially advised lightening that burden by providing encounter guidelines weighted towards many, relatively easy combats that wouldn't call for in-combat healing, making hp attrition a whole-day consideration instead of dropping/dying in combat being a tactical consideration.As far as that goes, yes, since HD are proportional (being, afterall, how your hps are determined, as well as how they can be restored on a short rest).  OTOH, proportionally, magical healing resources are less effective on them.</blockquote>

Verification