D&D 5E Using the "Bonus Action Potion Houserule" with Cure Wounds/Healing Word

[Stalker0]

So a houserule that seems to have become more popular on the boards is this for healing potions:

Healing Potion: Uses a bonus action. Optional: If you instead use an action to consume the potion, the healing is maximized.


With some talking about healing being "too weak" in 5e, I thought it would be an interesting idea to apply this same concept to the two core healing spells.

Cure Wounds
Action: Bonus Action (see option below)
(added).... Option: You may cast this spell as an action. If you do, the healing is maximized.

Healing Word
Action: Bonus Action (see option below)
(added).... Option: You may cast this spell as an action. If you do, the healing is maximized.

Healing word still gives the advantage of ranged healing, but cure would provide a good bit more straight up healing. An action consumed healing spell would give a solid bang for the buck, but you now have the flexibility of quick heals when needed.

 

[Stormonu]

Not a bad idea. I already use the bonus action potion (but not action to maximize - that’s new for me, but sounds interesting). I’ll have to try the Cure Wounds to see how it works and changes the dynamic of a combat, but I like the idea.

 

[DarkCrisis]

I have never heard anyone say healing is to weak in 5E.

I have heard that 5E has to much healing and is jokingly called "easy mode" when combined with death saves and multi saves etc.

 

[Stormonu]

Oh, I was primarily thinking about how this affected Clerics, but what about Bards? This change seems like it would really benefit them most of all.

 

[ECMO3]

So a houserule that seems to have become more popular on the boards is this for healing potions:

Healing Potion: Uses a bonus action. Optional: If you instead use an action to consume the potion, the healing is maximized.


With some talking about healing being "too weak" in 5e, I thought it would be an interesting idea to apply this same concept to the two core healing spells.

Cure Wounds
Action: Bonus Action (see option below)
(added).... Option: You may cast this spell as an action. If you do, the healing is maximized.

Healing Word
Action: Bonus Action (see option below)
(added).... Option: You may cast this spell as an action. If you do, the healing is maximized.

Healing word still gives the advantage of ranged healing, but cure would provide a good bit more straight up healing. An action consumed healing spell would give a solid bang for the buck, but you now have the flexibility of quick heals when needed.

Based on my playing experience the first part of the potion thing is ok - bonus action when you use a potion on yourself. The second part of it is way too much I think and I don't liek changing the spells.

I have played extensively on one particular table that allows potion use as a bonus action it has been fine. It is still an aciton to administer a poition to someone else.

 

[ehren37]

Doing something similar in our current game. Healing Word, Cure Wounds and Lay on Hands are all bonus actions. If used as an action, the healing is doubled. This is combined with some other house rules (replacing failed death saves with wounds, suffer a wound when hit for bloodied value, suffer a wound upon being reduced to 0 HP, wounds go away when healed to full or treated via medicine during a short rest). The goal is to be easier to avoid being dropped to 0 HP, but make it riskier when you are, in order to encourage proactive combat healing rather than the whack-a-mole healing that has become 5E's default.

 

[the Jester]

So a houserule that seems to have become more popular on the boards is this for healing potions:

Healing Potion: Uses a bonus action. Optional: If you instead use an action to consume the potion, the healing is maximized.


With some talking about healing being "too weak" in 5e, I thought it would be an interesting idea to apply this same concept to the two core healing spells.

I have never understood the "healing is too weak in 5e" thing. Of course it doesn't keep up with expected damage; it really shouldn't (IMHO). And isn't 5e out of the box already easy enough on pcs?

That said, I feel like the differences between HW and CW make it so that, as of now, if you have to choose just one, it's not an easy choice. The casting time is a big part of that- HW is not worth a full action. If you make CW a bonus action to cast, I don't know that the range on HW would be enough to make it worth taking.

 

[James Gasik]

I have never heard anyone say healing is to weak in 5E.

I have heard that 5E has to much healing and is jokingly called "easy mode" when combined with death saves and multi saves etc.

Oh here, let me. Healing is weak in 5e. A CR 1 Bugbear can slap a guy for 11 damage, and you'd need a cure wounds upcast to 2nd level just to bring someone back to the hit points they were at before the attack, let alone give them any buffer to soak up more attacks.

 

[pukunui]

Oh here, let me. Healing is weak in 5e. A CR 1 Bugbear can slap a guy for 11 damage, and you'd need a cure wounds upcast to 2nd level just to bring someone back to the hit points they were at before the attack, let alone give them any buffer to soak up more attacks.

Why would you need to upcast it to 2nd level? If the healer has a 16 in their casting stat, which is not an unreasonable assumption to make, that's a +3 to the d8. If you get lucky (or get some way to maximize the die result), then you can get 11 hit points back on a 1st level casting.

 

[James Gasik]

Why would you need to upcast it to 2nd level? If the healer has a 16 in their casting stat, which is not an unreasonable assumption to make, that's a +3 to the d8. If you get lucky (or get some way to maximize the die result), then you can get 11 hit points back on a 1st level casting.

Yeah, if you max out your roll. The 11 damage from the Bugbear is his average, he actually swings for 2d8+2.

 

[pukunui]

Yeah, if you max out your roll. The 11 damage from the Bugbear is his average, he actually swings for 2d8+2.

Meh. I still wouldn't consider that as an indication of healing being too weak. Healing being too weak is certainly not something I've personally experienced in the years I've been playing 5e.

 

[James Gasik]

Meh. I still wouldn't consider that as an indication of healing being too weak. Healing being too weak is certainly not something I've personally experienced in the years I've been playing 5e.

So when damage outpaces even the best healing spells, and ranged damage spells blow touch healing spells out of the water, healing is just fine? I'm almost curious what you would consider weak healing, then.

But I've heard all the arguments. If you're fine with just throwing out healing word to keep people going long enough to get to being able to spend Hit Dice, or carrying around 100 potions of healing because, what else are you going to do with your treasure, that's great.

I'm not.

 

[DarkCrisis]

So when damage outpaces even the best healing spells, and ranged damage spells blow touch healing spells out of the water, healing is just fine? I'm almost curious what you would consider weak healing, then.

But I've heard all the arguments. If you're fine with just throwing out healing word to keep people going long enough to get to being able to spend Hit Dice, or carrying around 100 potions of healing because, what else are you going to do with your treasure, that's great.

I'm not.

Your table. You have fun your way.

But as a dude who’s played 5E since release and recently went back to 2E, trust me 5Es healing is fine.

 

[James Gasik]

Your table. You have fun your way.

But as a dude who’s played 5E since release and recently went back to 2E, trust me 5Es healing is fine.

The man said he'd never heard anyone say 5e healing is weak. I said it. If people are fine with the way that part of the game is, like you said. Your table, you have fun your way.

 

[Smackpixi]

In combat healing is pretty trash in 5e, but I’d combine this with gritty rests, or some other greater out of combat limitation. 5e is too much out of combat healing, too little in. Healing is a real bad use of reasources in combat unless you totally control the action economy and have actions to spare, but even then, still suboptimal, but a maybe ok? use of excess actions.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I have never heard anyone say healing is to weak in 5E.

I have heard that 5E has to much healing and is jokingly called "easy mode" when combined with death saves and multi saves etc.

^ THIS!

Healing isn't weak in 5E at all. With spending HD on short rests, the Healer feat, easy healing potions listed on the equipment table, and so many types of healing spells and classes/subclasses with access to them, it is abundant with healing potential.

So a houserule that seems to have become more popular on the boards is this for healing potions:

Healing Potion: Uses a bonus action. Optional: If you instead use an action to consume the potion, the healing is maximized.

Yeah, I've heard people say the whole healing potion as a bonus action. I would never do this. Frankly, it's ridiculous.

I've never heard anyone mention the action to maximum option, however, which just makes it more so IMO.

How about this: if your party keeps getting injured so much, try avoiding combat?

Now, this won't help for the groups who want more healing, but FWIW we use maximum rolls when upcasting, but for all spells. So, a level 2 cure wounds does 1d8+8 (maximum of 2nd d8) +WIS mod, while a level 5 fireball would do 8d6 + 12 (maximum of the extra 2d6).

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not aware of complaints that healing is too weak either, but the proposed houserule seems okay.

There's a cost and a benefit.

I do have some questions though:

Does the ability to max out healing also apply when upcasting a spell?

Is it possible to take an action to administer a potion to a dying ally so as to heal them more?

 

[Digdude]

Hyperbole warning.. healing too weak? What do you want, enemies with nerf weapons?...hyperbole ended...resume gaming.

 

[Cruentus]

Oh here, let me. Healing is weak in 5e. A CR 1 Bugbear can slap a guy for 11 damage, and you'd need a cure wounds upcast to 2nd level just to bring someone back to the hit points they were at before the attack, let alone give them any buffer to soak up more attacks.

Iirc, a 1e bugbear, by way of comparison did 2d4 or by weapon type, same as a PC’s weapon. Now, the bugbear does 2d8+2. Why? HP bloat. Then all of a sudden healing can’t keep pace. I wonder why. Monsters need more HP, PCs need to do more damage, monsters need to do more damage, everyone then needs MOAR HPs. It’s an endless, sort of stupid cycle, imo.

 

[James Gasik]

Iirc, a 1e bugbear, by way of comparison did 2d4 or by weapon type, same as a PC’s weapon. Now, the bugbear does 2d8+2. Why? HP bloat. Then all of a sudden healing can’t keep pace. I wonder why. Monsters need more HP, PCs need to do more damage, monsters need to do more damage, everyone then needs MOAR HPs. It’s an endless, sort of stupid cycle, imo.

I don't think the players are really benefiting from hit point bloat though. I mean, a 1st level Fighter with 16 Con in AD&D has 12 hit points. In 5e they have 13.

And damage? 1st level Fighter in AD&D with 16 Strength is doing 1d8+2 (+4 if weapon specialization is on the table) with a long sword, or 1d10+2/+4. His 5e counterpart is doing 1d8+3 or 2d6+3. Again, not huge differences. Actually if weapon specialization is taken into account, you have a bonus attack every off turn, making the AD&D Fighter more powerful!

So I'm not entirely sure I get why monsters have to have more hit points and do more damage if the players aren't significantly stronger than they used to be...*

*At least until 10th level, where the PC's still keep getting hit dice.