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

[Cruentus]

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.

Yes, except for Second Wind (more hp), average HP+ Con per level, fighting style benefits, plus potentially Feats (if we’re counting weapon specialization). My F2/W14 had 114 hp in 5e. My Ad&d Wizard at 12th level had 44. It’s pretty significant. And, at least at our table, in Ad&d we didn’t use max first level HP, we rolled. I’m sure we had a reroll 1s or something, but you weren’t’t automatically getting the max.

 

[aco175]

For my last campaign, we have been playing with the bonus action to drink a potion and roll for HP, full action to get max HP. Administering to fallen ally is full action and you roll still. It is overall fine and some may depend on your party makeup. If the group of cleric of life short, then it makes sense.

Healing word is a bonus action 30ft range and Cure Wounds is a action and touch but more healing. I would not want to change the CW to a bonus action since the trade off is already in the other spell, but might see having clerics be able to maximize the healing somehow. Bards and rangers and such are still the normal way.

 

[Digdude]

I still am amazed there is not a small heal over time low level concentration spell.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Yes, I've seen that.

I've also seen players who want to play healers who complain that in-combat healing is weak, if your goal is to keep your friends up rather than play whack-a-mole using Healing Word. Healing Word and healing from 0 is strong; since negative HP are wasted, getting friends up from 0 is relatively efficient. Whatever would have been negative HP in an edition prior to 4th is ignored. You get to count from 0 and immediately get your friend at fighting effectiveness again.

But if your desire is to keep friends from dropping, 5E healing spells aren't very effective. Generally speaking a single monster of CR equal to your level commonly does as much or more damage on an average hit than a healing spell does on a max roll. So it feels action-inefficient.

Much the same factor is at play with the potion house rule. That it feels like you're losing out if you spend an action to drink a healing potion in combat. If the monster hits you again on its next action it almost certainly does more damage to you than you just healed, so it feels like you've wasted a consumable magic resource to NOT make progress toward winning the fight- in fact the opposite if they roll more damage than you managed to heal. The whole exchange becomes a net negative for the party.

Of course things can be more complicated than that based on the tactical situation and what other party members are doing, but from a damage inflicted/suffered comparison, I can definitely see WHY folks implement house rules like these.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I've used the drink a potion as a bonus action rule - we generally apply it to all potions because most just aren't worth an action to drink. Even a potion of growth isn't worth it because the +1d4 per hit damage is likely to only last 2 turns or so - the 2d4 (or 4d4 at 5th) potential damage is generally less than just using your action on the first round to attack.

I could see giving CW a buff. I've briefly used "when you get healed you can also spend Hit Dice" as a general rule (1 HD per healing die rolled) but just allowing that for CW might be an interesting option. A second level CW that also lets the target spend 2 HD can be a lot of hit points at 3rd level.

 

[TheHand]

I haven't seen the bonus-action Cure Wounds houserule before, but we do use a kind of modified version of the bonus-action potion rule. You can drink a potion as a bonus action as long as you do not/have not used your move action in the same turn (so in a sense, kind of a don't drink and drive rule!).

 

[Oofta]

We use the bonus action potion rule, it seems to work fairly well. I also allow people to buy healing potions of any strength (they have access to a special market now that they're high level). They spend a lot of money on potions because I also use the gritty rest rules.

I gave the cleric a boon at one point that they can maximize healing 3 times per rest, and they still complain about not having enough healing. This is all about how challenging your fights are and what is the most fun for the group. I throw some pretty deadly fights at the group and it's not unusual for 1 or more PCs to go unconscious in a fight. If you want to play a primarily healer cleric it's very difficult to keep up with the damage output of the monsters if the DM wants.

So with all that I may bring up this rule for our next campaign and see what people think. I'd want to try it for a bit, but it's an interesting idea.

 

[Shiroiken]

We've definitely never had an issue with healing being "too weak" in 5E. Healing Word is meant to be the low level in combat healing spell, while Cure Wounds is meant to be used after the combat. Boosting them seems completely unnecessary IMO.

 

[Clint_L]

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.

I think most folks house rule that you can drink a potion yourself as a bonus action; administering it to someone else is still an action.

For your proposals re. cure wounds/healing word: no thank you. I already think healing word is extremely OP and should be removed from the game (I know it won't be). It leads to the whole "whack a mole" style of 5e encounters where you mostly don't bother with healing until a character goes to 0 HPs. I would prefer not to add cure wounds to that mess.

Also, this is an extraordinary buff to both spells, but cure wounds in particular. 5e is balanced around healing in combat mostly being weak, so this change would upset a lot of other apple carts, notably creature DPR. 5e is specifically designed with the intent that healing normally cannot keep pace with DPR.

 

[ECMO3]

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.

This is incorrect. In AD&D rolling hit points was the only option, so a 1st level fighter with a 16 con had on average 7.5hps with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 12.

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!

This is incorrect as well. A 1st level fighter with a longsword in AD&D is doing 1d8+1 against medium creatures and 1d12+1 against large creatures. With a two-handed sword it is 1d10+1 and 3d6+1 respectively, with a +2 bonus for specialization. However if he was specialized in a weapon he would only be proficient in two other weapons at 1st level.

A 16 strength was also not that common, often fighters had a 14 or so.

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...*

The action economy and action order is entirely different in 5E. There were no bonus actions, split movement or reactions, all of which add damage.

Further while the damage was similar it was more difficult to hit enemies. A 1E 1st level fighter with a 16 strength needed a15 to hit someone in chainmail. A 5E fighter with a 16 strength needs an 11 to hit someone in chainmail.