D&D 5E Whack-a-mole gaming or being healed from 0 hp

[KarinsDad]

I guess then you never play a heal focussed PC on first to 3.5 edition either, because obviously ending the fight quicker is so much better in the action economy that taking time to move towards a fallen ally is foolish.....

I didn't say healing an ally that way is always foolish, but it sometimes is. Nor is 3.5 or earlier 5E. 5E encounters often end quickly and taking the time out to heal a fallen ally often has a definitive downside to it for the rest of the party. Pros and Cons. Sometimes, it makes sense (the heavily armored fighter is the only one who can stand up to the NPC brute) or the risk to the rest of the party is low (e.g. the battle is almost over anyway) when a PC heals another PC with an action. But, 5E is a different game than those earlier ones. If you want to shoehorn earlier types of D&D play into 5E, do so.

But don't expect everyone to do that.

Healing with Cure Wounds is no more heroic (or fun at the table) than healing with Healing Word and then smacking a foe with a sword. That's blatantly false. You are working off a false premise.

5e just killed the first one. Healing word just takes all of the good out of the second one. Why, because it is the I-Win button of healbots. If there was an option that let fighting types autokill enemies from afar, without a chance of failure, as a bonus action and that couldn't be used in the same round as a regular attack, would you really just use that one instead of using attacks? it is a safer option that works better with the action economy and makes more sense, it doesn't matter your individual fun, only that the party is as most optimally successful as possible...

Play the way you want to, but don't presume to think that a "take a risk in order to heal" style of play is in any way superior to other people's style of play. Healing Word is not an "I win" button. Far from it. It allows an option of healing plus taking a non-spell action instead of healing stronger. It's a choice. Is it a strong choice? Yes, often. Is it always the best choice? Nope.

 

[MoonSong]

I didn't say healing an ally that way is always foolish, but it sometimes is. Nor is 3.5 or earlier 5E. 5E encounters often end quickly and taking the time out to heal a fallen ally often has a definitive downside to it for the rest of the party. Pros and Cons. Sometimes, it makes sense (the heavily armored fighter is the only one who can stand up to the NPC brute) or the risk to the rest of the party is low (e.g. the battle is almost over anyway) when a PC heals another PC with an action. But, 5E is a different game than those earlier ones. If you want to shoehorn earlier types of D&D play into 5E, do so.

But don't expect everyone to do that.

Healing with Cure Wounds is no more heroic (or fun at the table) than healing with Healing Word and then smacking a foe with a sword. That's blatantly false. You are working off a false premise.



Play the way you want to, but don't presume to think that a "take a risk in order to heal" style of play is in any way superior to other people's style of play. Healing Word is not an "I win" button. Far from it. It allows an option of healing plus taking a non-spell action instead of healing stronger. It's a choice. Is it a strong choice? Yes, often. Is it always the best choice? Nope.

But you are the one being dismissive of my playstyle, you even called names and used loaded words, that it was idiot, not a real contribution, not the smart thing to do and implied it was delusional. Al I did was to tell the loss of Healing word isn't really a bad thing if you like to heal and in fact it made things good for a player who wants to heal. Then I explained how I don't use it, don't like, how I feel it devaluates the role of the healer, and that I'd rather play something else than being forced to prepare it.

 

[KarinsDad]

But you are the one being dismissive of my playstyle, you even called names and used loaded words, that it was idiot, not a real contribution, not the smart thing to do and implied it was delusional. Al I did was to tell the loss of Healing word isn't really a bad thing if you like to heal and in fact it made things good for a player who wants to heal. Then I explained how I don't use it, don't like, how I feel it devaluates the role of the healer, and that I'd rather play something else than being forced to prepare it.

You mean loaded phrases like "Healing Word is cheap" and it "devaluates your role"? Sorry dude, but you started the conversation off in your first post by being dismissive of other people's playstyle and choice of spell. I get it. You don't like Healing Word. Your rationale doesn't make a lot of sense in a combat situation where making good choices leads to a less damaged party which uses fewer overall resources, but it's ok that you don't like it.

When I played my healbot, I did not even necessarily heal a downed PC right away. I sometimes waited a round so that the foes surrounding that downed PC move off to go attack other PCs or for some other reason. The concept of playing any PC, let alone a healbot, one and only one way does indeed sound subpar (unless one is roleplaying a low Int/Wis PC in which case, subpar choices in combat make sense). My PC is in a life and death struggle often. I play him that way. If Healing Word is a better choice, he's going to use it. If Cure Wounds is a better choice, he's going to use that. If not casting a healing spell is a better choice, he's going to do that.

From the perspective of the PC, Healing Word is a great spell. That's roleplaying. If you were actually your character in a D&D world, you would not have the opinion you have. You would love the fact that you could get a downed ally conscious from 60 feet away. I'm not going to throw the screwdriver out of the toolkit cause I prefer to use a hammer.

 

[Zardnaar]

Where is this bonus action healing coming from? Stabilizing a creature with or without a kit requires an action. In any event, I would rule that stabilizing a creature via medicine or healers kit takes a regular action. Such an activity falls beyond the scope of simply interacting with an object.

The Thief ability to use an object as a bonus action which is done with the healers kit which is an object.

 

[Lanefan]

From the perspective of the PC, Healing Word is a great spell. That's roleplaying. If you were actually your character in a D&D world, you would not have the opinion you have. You would love the fact that you could get a downed ally conscious from 60 feet away. I'm not going to throw the screwdriver out of the toolkit cause I prefer to use a hammer.

From the perspective of the PC of course Healing Word is great, as would be any kind of ranged healing.

From the perspective of the *game*, however, ranged healing of any kind is poor design; I'm with MoonSong on this one in that trying to heal someone in combat should probably have some risks attached - first in getting to the fallen at all and second in getting your spell away without being interrupted.

That said, without ranged healing if someone goes down your better move is probably to draw away their opponent somehow, finish the fight, and worry about healing afterward.

Lan-"not everyone needs to be doing something all the time"-efan

 

[MoonSong]

You mean loaded phrases like "Healing Word is cheap" and it "devaluates your role"? Sorry dude, but you started the conversation off in your first post by being dismissive of other people's playstyle and choice of spell. I get it. You don't like Healing Word. Your rationale doesn't make a lot of sense in a combat situation where making good choices leads to a less damaged party which uses fewer overall resources, but it's ok that you don't like it.

When I played my healbot, I did not even necessarily heal a downed PC right away. I sometimes waited a round so that the foes surrounding that downed PC move off to go attack other PCs or for some other reason. The concept of playing any PC, let alone a healbot, one and only one way does indeed sound subpar (unless one is roleplaying a low Int/Wis PC in which case, subpar choices in combat make sense). My PC is in a life and death struggle often. I play him that way. If Healing Word is a better choice, he's going to use it. If Cure Wounds is a better choice, he's going to use that. If not casting a healing spell is a better choice, he's going to do that.

From the perspective of the PC, Healing Word is a great spell. That's roleplaying. If you were actually your character in a D&D world, you would not have the opinion you have. You would love the fact that you could get a downed ally conscious from 60 feet away. I'm not going to throw the screwdriver out of the toolkit cause I prefer to use a hammer.

Yes, sorry about not being more careful with the words, I wasn't trying to be dismissive, I was bitter. the "devaluates the role", is less an opinion and more an observation. The easiest the healing the less fellow players value you as a healer, and the less you actually get to heal, and the more and more the others start telling you how to play your character. This is the kind of ugly experience that poisoned 4e for me at first. It wasn't nice.

 

[pukunui]

[MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]: Do you intend to amend the aura of life spell at all? It grants allies 1 hp whenever they start their turn in the radius with 0 hp. Will you make it so they gain 1 hp whenever they start their turn with between 0 and -10 hp? Will they still only gain a single hp out of it, or could it potentially heal them back up to 1 over the course of several rounds?

Just something to think about.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The problem becomes where to draw the line. -10 means that any creature capable of dealing 10+the PCs current HP can instantly kill the PC. But what is a good number? How deadly do you want to make things?

I think I would choose negative Con if I were to choose a number. I reckon that would work perfectly fine for the purposes of scaring Players into using healing magic early and not whack-a-moleing

 

[Psikerlord#]

But you are the one being dismissive of my playstyle, you even called names and used loaded words, that it was idiot, not a real contribution, not the smart thing to do and implied it was delusional. Al I did was to tell the loss of Healing word isn't really a bad thing if you like to heal and in fact it made things good for a player who wants to heal. Then I explained how I don't use it, don't like, how I feel it devaluates the role of the healer, and that I'd rather play something else than being forced to prepare it.

I agree that healing word makes healing too easy in 5e. I thought that when I first read it (bonus action and ranged), and still believe it is too easy having played 5e for a while now. Still, we have found that using injuries at zero hp helps make cure wounds more valuable again. Overall however I think the game would be better if healing word were deleted, or perhaps changed to a 5th level spell or something.

 

[pukunui]

I have to admit that I have yet to really experience healing word in game. I will now have the opportunity, though, as I had a new guy join my new campaign, and he asked me to make up a character for him, since he hasn't played since the 2e days, and so I whipped up a bard with, yep, healing word. Probably wasn't necessary, either, since one of the other PCs is a life cleric. Ah well. We'll see if it makes things too easy for them. I could potentially get him to swap it out for something else if it proves to be too problematic.