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.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

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.