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

[DND_Reborn]

Ok but I mean, a Bugbear is a CR 1 enemy. You'd think a 3rd level spell would delete such foes outright, wouldn't you?

If it was a spell against a single foe, definitely. And I think many people would agree. But when it can affect several at once, it becomes more questionable...

As for whether or not a caster should have that power, I dunno. I mean, you only get so many uses of that ability per day.

Yeah, the uses per day argument is one of the most common arguments. The counter-argument is that really depends too much encounter per day. If you typically only have two encounters per long rest, a caster could toss a fireball in each encounter, potentially dealing massive amounts of damage.

While it is true a 5th level martial would have Extra Attack, and Fighters would be able to use Action Surge (probably even in both of the two encounters given a short rest in between), they still couldn't match the massive damage potential of a couple of fireballs.

 

[ECMO3]

AD&D sleep could affect 4-16 orcs (1 HD creatures).

5E sleep affects 5d8 hit points of creatures and the average orc has 15 hp. You have about a 6% chance you will roll so low you won't even affect 1, and less than a 9% chances you will affect 2. So, 85% of the time, you'll get a single orc with a sleep spell.

Obviously, AD&D sleep is much more powerful/effective. It has a 50/50 chance of getting an ogre. 5E sleep has no chance unless you upcast it (severely if you want the same 50/50 chance--like 5th level!)

Yes and no. 5E sleep works on current hit points. You can put down a Beholder or a Dragon with it without a save after you have wittled its hit points down. 1E sleep works on hit dice.

1E sleep is more powerful at low levels, 5E sleep is more powerful at higher levels, especially when enemies have legendary resistance.

5E fireball does 8d6, sleep cast at 3rd level is 7d8 with no save. If you are looking at that badly damaged Dragon, thinking he needs to go down right now before its turn and wondering whether to cast sleep or fireball with your remaining 3rd level slot - sleep is actually the more effective play most of the time.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

5E fireball does 8d6, sleep cast at 3rd level is 7d8 with no save. If you are looking at that badly damaged Dragon, thinking he needs to go down right now before its turn and wondering whether to cast sleep or fireball with your remaining 3rd level slot - sleep is actually the more effective play most of the time.

well, this is ignoring the fact that fireball does half damage on a successful save while if you don't roll high enough on that 7d8 your sleep isn't doing anything. in that sense, fireball is a lot safer then sleep.

 

[ECMO3]

well, this is ignoring the fact that fireball does half damage on a successful save while if you don't roll high enough on that 7d8 your sleep isn't doing anything. in that sense, fireball is a lot safer then sleep.

If fireball will be enough to down him then sleep will be enough to down him. Sure if you cast sleep and don't roll high enough it does nothing at all and then your remaining allies kill him next round after taking a breath weapon or an attack sequence and a few more legendary and lair actions .... but they take those if you damage him with fireball and don't put him down too.

Obviously this is situational, but the point is sleep remains useful in 5E at all levels. In 1E after about 4th level it was pretty useless.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

If fireball will be enough to down him then sleep will be enough to down him. Sure if you cast sleep and don't roll high enough it does nothing at all and then your remaining allies kill him next round after taking a breath weapon or an attack sequence and a few more legendary and lair actions .... but they take those if you damage him with fireball and don't put him down too.

not necessarily. and that is the key difference between choosing fireball over sleep here - even if the dragon makes the save, you're still doing damage, and that damage might just be enough to help the paladin down it on his next turn, instead of the sleep not doing anything to the dragon, the paladin not doing enough damage to take the dragon down, and then the dragon being able to do more stuff then if the paladin had downed it. alternatively, because fireball has a save and sleep doesn't, maybe the fireball burns the dragon's last legendary resistance and lets the cleric banish it or something.

i'm not disagreeing with your overall point that sleep isn't completely useless here, just that i think it's a much riskier option.

edit: anyway i just realized this is kind of off topic, so uh...my bad.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'd be fine with drinking healing potions being a bonus action... IF everyone would remember that they have to:

1) Have a free hand (IE put away or drop what they're holding)
2) Get it out (Belt pouch? Backpack? Where do you keep it?)
3) Now pop the cork and drink it as a bonus action, why not.

OR... you spend an action and drink/administer it and don't worry about the above stuff. It's included.

 

[James Gasik]

What I like about sleep in 5e is how it synergizes with what your allies tend to be doing; that is, dealing hit point damage. It's always annoying when a caster throws out a spell that basically ends the fight on a failed save, making the damage contribution of your allies nearly moot.

With sleep, however, you can wait until you friends beat down an enemy, and then (assuming you're careful about who has the lowest hit points), use sleep as a finisher.

Anyways...I don't use bonus action for potions. I did, but what happened was that there are too many other good uses for a bonus action, even when I made other kinds of potions available.

So my current rule is as follows:

If you have a potion in a readily accessible location (such as a potion bandolier or similar container) or it is already in hand, you can drink it with your free "interact with an item" each turn. If it is in a backpack, you can use your "free interact" to get it in hand.

Then another house rule lets you "interact with an item" as a bonus action. This does mean that if someone sets it up correctly, they could drink multiple potions in a turn.

As for potion holsters and bandoliers, however, they are clearly visible, and while I don't let enemies attack them individually (I've seen called shots like that go south once in the player's hands), you can bet if someone goes down, enemies will be happy to help themselves to free potions.

I also let enemies use these same rules, though sparingly (nothing like making players sweat when they see enemies "drinking our treasure"!).

I've also allowed a player to have a potion holster on the backside of his shield, though he does need to have a free hand to grab it.

I have other rules with regards to healing, though I've noticed that even making cure wounds better doesn't stop the players from using healing word. Bonus action + regular action, even if it's just a weapon attack or a cantrip > action used to heal. And of course, having a range other than touch is nice.

So there are concerns beyond simply the amount of healing spells can do that have to be addressed. On a side note, the proposed Divine Spark channel ability the playtest Clerics have has generated buzz among Cleric players I've talked to.

 

[M_Natas]

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.

The problem is not that damage outpaces healing spell abilities. That is totally fine. It is always easier to destroy than to build/healing. If healing could outpace damage you could get eternal fights.

The problem in 5e is, that healing in combat is usually only useful, when the Character is at 0 HP, because getting him up again to even 1 HP will bring him back to full fighting capacity. bringing a PC from 20 to 25 HP or from 2 to 7 HP is a waste of potions and spellslots.

Yeah, one way to fix that would be to make healing stronger. But then again: eternal fights when everybody can fully heal up again.
Another way to fix that is: Somebody at 0 HP can't benefit from magical healing during combat (like if you are down, healing takes a minute instead of an action). They only can get stabilised. Now the players have an incentive to avoid getting to 0 HP. Now using healing while the players are not down to 0 HP is a must.

 

[James Gasik]

The problem is not that damage outpaces healing spell abilities. That is totally fine. It is always easier to destroy than to build/healing. If healing could outpace damage you could get eternal fights.

The problem in 5e is, that healing in combat is usually only useful, when the Character is at 0 HP, because getting him up again to even 1 HP will bring him back to full fighting capacity. bringing a PC from 20 to 25 HP or from 2 to 7 HP is a waste of potions and spellslots.

Yeah, one way to fix that would be to make healing stronger. But then again: eternal fights when everybody can fully heal up again.
Another way to fix that is: Somebody at 0 HP can't benefit from magical healing during combat (like if you are down, healing takes a minute instead of an action). They only can get stabilised. Now the players have an incentive to avoid getting to 0 HP. Now using healing while the players are not down to 0 HP is a must.

No fight would be truly eternal, healing resources are limited, after all, and most opponents use physical attacks that don't run out of go juice, unlike spellcasters.

Let's assume that cure wounds scaled to where it could heal 150% of a single opponent's damage, enough to heal a full turn and give you a buffer. I'll keep picking on the Bugbear, since we know his damage is 2d8+2 (average 11). If cure wounds did 3d8+casting stat, it would take 2 of these- both of the Cleric's first level spell slots, to equal 3 rounds of Bugbear attacking. Even if we assume the very likely possibility that our Bugbear only gets 2 turns before he goes down, it still means 1 spell slot does not equal one opponent.

I think that's a pretty fair use of resources, myself. Of course, if you kill the Bugbear faster, then you've "healed" damage he would have caused (as previously pointed out upthread), so damage dealing isn't exactly obsoleted even with good healing spells.

Ironically, one will realize quickly that the best use of better healing spells is to wait until someone is critically low on hit points so as not to "waste" their potential, which actually puts players in more danger- you want to wait until an ally is fuming on hit points, you run the risk of them going down to a critical hit.

I think this would actually make the combat dynamic more exciting than it is currently, especially since you have to be up front where the danger is to use cure wounds in the first place.

 

[M_Natas]

No fight would be truly eternal, healing resources are limited, after all, and most opponents use physical attacks that don't run out of go juice, unlike spellcasters.

Let's assume that cure wounds scaled to where it could heal 150% of a single opponent's damage, enough to heal a full turn and give you a buffer. I'll keep picking on the Bugbear, since we know his damage is 2d8+2 (average 11). If cure wounds did 3d8+casting stat, it would take 2 of these- both of the Cleric's first level spell slots, to equal 3 rounds of Bugbear attacking. Even if we assume the very likely possibility that our Bugbear only gets 2 turns before he goes down, it still means 1 spell slot does not equal one opponent.

I think that's a pretty fair use of resources, myself. Of course, if you kill the Bugbear faster, then you've "healed" damage he would have caused (as previously pointed out upthread), so damage dealing isn't exactly obsoleted even with good healing spells.

Ironically, one will realize quickly that the best use of better healing spells is to wait until someone is critically low on hit points so as not to "waste" their potential, which actually puts players in more danger- you want to wait until an ally is fuming on hit points, you run the risk of them going down to a critical hit.

I think this would actually make the combat dynamic more exciting than it is currently, especially since you have to be up front where the danger is to use cure wounds in the first place.

Yeah, but when the Players get stronger Healing, the NPCs and Monster will get it, too.
That will prolong fights, until one party runs out of spellslots.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If you have a potion in a readily accessible location (such as a potion bandolier or similar container) or it is already in hand, you can drink it with your free "interact with an item" each turn. If it is in a backpack, you can use your "free interact" to get it in hand.

This is just following the RAW regarding free interactions and what we do as well.

As for potion holsters and bandoliers, however, they are clearly visible, and while I don't let enemies attack them individually (I've seen called shots like that go south once in the player's hands), you can bet if someone goes down, enemies will be happy to help themselves to free potions.

LOL potion holsters would never fly in my games. You walk around with something like that and your PC will be robbed or killed while they're sleeping. And yes, enemies will target such a PC, knowing it has magical potions.

I have other rules with regards to healing, though I've noticed that even making cure wounds better doesn't stop the players from using healing word.

Here's a simple thought if you want more healing: you add the caster level to the number of hit points healed.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Another way to fix that is: Somebody at 0 HP can't benefit from magical healing during combat (like if you are down, healing takes a minute instead of an action). They only can get stabilised. Now the players have an incentive to avoid getting to 0 HP. Now using healing while the players are not down to 0 HP is a must.

Problem: there's no good way to prevent going down. If you spend a turn healing, you'll only delay getting dropped by half a turn (at best), so healing (and most thp options) aren't worth the action. The only way to prevent a drop is to kill the enemies before they do damage.

So the optimal tactic remains "nova the enemies before they can attack", the only change is you've made alternatives less viable.

 

[Mannahnin]

If you have a potion in a readily accessible location (such as a potion bandolier or similar container) or it is already in hand, you can drink it with your free "interact with an item" each turn. If it is in a backpack, you can use your "free interact" to get it in hand.

This is just following the RAW regarding free interactions and what we do as well.

I think you've misread, DND_Reborn. The house rule is allowing them to DRINK IT with their free item interaction on their turn, not using an Action.

 

[Seramus]

I think an enormous number of games have conditioned us to expect a 1:1 - 2:1 ratio healing to incoming damage from a non-boss monster, so long as resources last.

I could sit down to play WoW, Skyrim, Overwatch, or a giant pile of other games and get such a result.

That's obviously a poor expectation to have when you switch to D&D, but I find new players who aspire to heal are frequently surprised by the comparatively lower 0.5:1 ratio during combat in D&D.

However, this is working as intended for 5E. Fights in 4E could go on for a ridiculously long time with even moderate healing available. The current ratio of in-combat healing keeps it reasonably brisk.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think you've misread, DND_Reborn. The house rule is allowing them to DRINK IT with their free item interaction on their turn, not using an Action.

No, that is how I took it. After all, if downing a flagon of ale or stuffing food in your mouth is a free interaction, drinking a potion should be as long as you already have it out and in hand.

For most instances, however, the free interaction involves getting the potion out, and then the Action is used to drink it (or wait until your next turn and drink it for free....).

I however, don't allow the bandolier of potions ( ), so potions are either in a belt pouch, backpack, etc. (requiring a free interaction to retrieve) or ALREADY IN HAND.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How about "pop the cork"? I assume that everyone handwaves it, but if we were simulationist (and I am absolutely NOT simulationist) I would think that popping the cork could be the slowest part of the job. I mean, you'd really need TWO free hands for that. Otherwise you'd probably be spilling potion on yourself regularly.

Of course, when you jump down that rabbit hole, you wind up with a LOT of things in D&D that we regularly handwave that would be a pain to deal with if you were really the adventurer. Six seconds is not a lot of time for some things, and an eternity for others.

 

[jmartkdr2]

How about "pop the cork"? I assume that everyone handwaves it, but if we were simulationist (and I am absolutely NOT simulationist) I would think that popping the cork could be the slowest part of the job. I mean, you'd really need TWO free hands for that. Otherwise you'd probably be spilling potion on yourself regularly.

Of course, when you jump down that rabbit hole, you wind up with a LOT of things in D&D that we regularly handwave that would be a pain to deal with if you were really the adventurer. Six seconds is not a lot of time for some things, and an eternity for others.

That feel like making too many things discrete actions: drawing an arrow, knocking an arrow, then using your action to shoot? Do we need one item interaction to unsheathe a sword and a second to grip it properly? How many interactions to use a spell component?

Unless your goal is to prevent pcs from drinking potions, popping the cork as a separate interaction feels like it's against the spirit and letter of the rules.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, but when the Players get stronger Healing, the NPCs and Monster will get it, too.
That will prolong fights, until one party runs out of spellslots.

How many monsters have healing now? I only have my experience to draw upon, but it seems fairly uncommon.

 

[DND_Reborn]

How about "pop the cork"? I assume that everyone handwaves it, but if we were simulationist (and I am absolutely NOT simulationist) I would think that popping the cork could be the slowest part of the job. I mean, you'd really need TWO free hands for that. Otherwise you'd probably be spilling potion on yourself regularly.

It really depends on the potion vial, bottle, or whatever and how it is actually capped. I used to put a cork in my chemistry beakers and pop that with my thumb while holding it in the same hand. And for something like doing that in combat, I would think the wiser adventurer would actually practice the motion.

Of course, when you jump down that rabbit hole, you wind up with a LOT of things in D&D that we regularly handwave that would be a pain to deal with if you were really the adventurer. Six seconds is not a lot of time for some things, and an eternity for others.

Yeah, it is a bit silly if you actually think about the six-second round... Oh well.

 

[James Gasik]

I understand not liking the idea of a potion bandolier, lol. And yes, if you wear one in town, I'm sure you would be targeted by thieves (at least, ones who know what the potions are). Of course, if there's no easy way to know what's a vial of oil and what's a potion of healing and what's just water with food dye, it sounds like a fairly easy thing to foil.

And yes, I realize, not letting people grab potions or smash bottles in combat is bending verisimilitude, but as I said, allowing that sort of thing led to more problems in the long run for me.

Example-

ROGUE: "Hey James, I want to use Sleight of Hand to steal the enemy spellcaster's spell component pouch/spell focus so he can't cast spells."

ME: "Uh...ok, sure..."

(Several encounters later)

ME: "The Goblin reaches up and snatches your holy symbol, so now you cannot use your channel energy."

CLERIC, glaring at Rogue: "You see what you started? I swear, first chance I get, I'm going to buy a bunch of holy symbols. Oh and also, have fun with those death saves, since I can't heal you."

ROGUE: "What have I done!!!"