Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6695417" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.</blockquote>