Author Topic: Healing in D&D sucks.  (Read 26513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Psychic Robot

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
Healing in D&D sucks.
« on: January 08, 2009, 08:17:23 PM »
3e's HP system fails.  4e's HP system fails.  3e relies on wands of CLW at low levels, and it requires a healer.  4e HP is too stupid for words.  (Six hours of sitting around means you get full HP?  Might as sit down, eat and drink for 30 seconds, and get back to the quest.)  Also, in-combat healing sucks (in 3e) because it's a waste of a turn that the cleric could be spending on winning.  Sure, there are some circumstances in which in-combat healing doesn't fail, but those are few and far between--especially since attacks often hit harder than you can heal, and save-or-dies don't care about your hit points.

Here's what I'm thinking of doing:

All the cure spells heal 1/2 the target's hit points, plus their normal amount.  Against undead, they only do their normal amount.  Inflict spells do their normal damage against living targets, but they heal undead targets for 1/2 their hit points, plus their normal amount of damage.

Thoughts?

PinkysBrain

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 23
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2009, 09:05:44 PM »
Healing is boring ... why would you want a game where you had to waste actions on it all the time?

Psychic Robot

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2009, 11:24:31 PM »
That was the opposite of helpful.  Anyone else?

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2009, 11:32:45 PM »
I dunno, I haven't had problems with healing.  Maybe it's the classes I'm playing though... one party has a Dread Necromancer for healing (free and easy healing out of combat, Black Sand to heal in combat), while the other is a party full of Factotums, so there's always somebody who can drop a heal when needed.

JaronK

Psychic Robot

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2009, 01:30:15 AM »
Jaron: That's probably true.  I'm thinking of the "traditional" party, with a fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric.

dman11235

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2009, 02:04:47 AM »
Well, yours doesn't really work either because, especially later on, you have a level 0 spell healing almost as much as a level 4 spell.  Even assuming you don't include Cure Minor in it, it's a level 1 spell doing almost the same as a level 4 spell, and that makes the power gap between them even LARGER than it already was.  It makes healing better (by a bit), but the spells...yeah.

Before you fix healing, we need to identify the problems.

1: there are almost always better actions to take.  Meaning healing is too little and takes up an action that could be used for hurting something.
2: there are almost always better spells to use slots on.  Spells that end combat, so you don't get hurt in the first place.
3: combat is not a lengthy endurance test, it's a 1-3 round pound fest.  Most of the battle is done by things that take you out of combat, rather than hurt you (HP wise).  This means that HP doesn't even matter for combat effectiveness.

Things I've noticed as I've played: in a lower caster party, HP plays a bigger role in combat.  My group tends to be more mundane based combatants, and as such we target HP in order to take out an enemy.  The DM knows this, and constructs encounters with this in mind, and as a result, we fight lots of things that target HP, more or less.  This has meant that healing is vital to survival, but we still never heal in combat because it's not worth it...except my Crusader, which can hurt something AND heal at the same time.  This solve problems 1, 2, and 3, at the same time, because it's not healing, it's normal combat with some healing as a bonus.

I think one thing that needs to be done for healing to be a better option is for it to be a swift action.  This way it's not going to use up your actions that you need for other things, like killing the enemy.  Another thing that would help is if the bigger heals were actually bigger heals.  As in, they heal more than you take in a full attack response.  This would make the action almost worth it, since you did actually prevent someone from dying.  Something like Cure Critical only heals a small portion of the level appropriate HP: 25 HP vs a level 7 total of something much closer to 60 or 70, maybe even more.  And the damage dealt at this level is in excess of 50 on a full attack.  So you just did very little to help your ally, from the highest spell slot you can cast.  When you get the cure spell: it should heal most of the HP total of a melee combatant.  Or remove a status from having damage, but that would require a new rule for status effects based on HP damage taken (which would also make healing MUCH more useful, since you aren't just delaying death, you're making your ally fight better).
My sig's Handy Haversack: Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2009, 02:26:33 AM »
Dman's position is one I share. This option makes wands of Cure Minor Wounds more valuable than scrolls of Heal.

An idea: Subsume the effects of healing into other spells. This turns healing into an action-effective tactic and can provide the party with a massive boost when they need the extra defense. Spells like Heal remain unchanged, but the Cure X line would be turned into other spells. Example:

Magic Circle Against Evil

(as normal, but add the following line).
In addition, any non-Evil creature that enters the circle for the first time heals 1d8+your CL (max +10) automaticaly. This applies to any given creature only once per casting (leaving and reentering does not grant additional healing). Undead that are harmed by positive energy instead take 1d8+your CL (max +10) upon entering, with the same restricitons.

How's that?


[spoiler][/spoiler]

Psychic Robot

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 378
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2009, 03:38:00 AM »
Ah, yes.  I didn't think of the orison.  Not counting that, my thinking is along the same lines as dman's: healing in combat sucks.  My intent would be to make mid-combat healing a viable tactic.  Perhaps instead of healing half HP, the cure spells could automatically target multiple allies in a close range?

ST: That makes sense, but it would kind of suck if the enemies wandered into it.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #8 on: January 09, 2009, 07:04:02 AM »
Jaron: That's probably true.  I'm thinking of the "traditional" party, with a fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric.

Okay, that I'll grant you, with the cavat that a DMM: Persistant Cleric (where that's allowed) can solve the problem by persisting Lesser Mass Vigor or Vigorous Circle.  If you can do that, you're basically fine... but that's not always allowed or available.

But yeah, your fix won't cut it due to getting too much healing.

I also like the idea of making healing spells that actually have longer term effects.  If a healing spell also temporarily boosted the target's AC, for example, or gave temporary hitpoints when it exceeded standard hitpoints... that would actually be valuable and useful. 

Right now, the best ways to heal are those that either don't use combat actions (Persistant LMV or VC, Black Sand for undead, Necrosis Carnexes for the same), those that do something else to the enemy (Crusader strikes, many Necromancer attacks), or those that are used exclusively out of combat (traditionally, the Vigor line).  In combat heals that use actions (Crusaders and Negative Energy users aside for the moment) are just a bad idea, and no one likes playing generic bandaid anyway.

Though I have to say, being a Necromancer bandaid is fun.  Sure, Clerics using in combat heals is annoying and boring, but dropping a Black Sand on your Necropolitan main tank followed by a Kelgor's Grave Mist so that everyone he's fighting is getting DoTed and fatigued while he gets healed... that's pretty cool, and fun.  Let's face it, blasting may not be the most effecting thing, but it is fun.  If traditional healing could be done that way too, it would be much better.  Perhaps spells that do things like hit an area of effect, with anyone who matches your alignment being healed and anyone opposing it being damaged the same amount.

JaronK

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #9 on: January 09, 2009, 04:12:30 PM »
Ah, yes.  I didn't think of the orison.  Not counting that, my thinking is along the same lines as dman's: healing in combat sucks.  My intent would be to make mid-combat healing a viable tactic.  Perhaps instead of healing half HP, the cure spells could automatically target multiple allies in a close range?

ST: That makes sense, but it would kind of suck if the enemies wandered into it.

It makes it a situational double-edged sword, but it is a great way to make healing relevant.


[spoiler][/spoiler]

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #10 on: January 09, 2009, 06:00:49 PM »
For groups that like much longer encounters (the only time reactive, action consuming heals are relevant in the least), just multiple HP of everything by 10. Then multiple all healing by 13 or so (Fast Heal and Regeneration for NPCs you may want to multiply a lesser amount depending on the party make-up and desired challenge). Then convert all SoD into percent HP losses (50% of current has a powerful, but quickly diminishing effect).

Another possibility to greatly widen the 'dying' gap, have extra damage taken to get to the 'dying' state not carry over in it (so one big hit will always knock you to 'dying' but never kill you outright), cut out the ease of resurrections, have heals restore fallen to 0 before applying, and tie them to some kind of short duration buffs (2 rounds of +20 saves or similar). Now it's much more vital to get to a fallen ally, and even low level healing will bring them back into the fight with extra benefit at least for a moment, and you have extra time to get to them if you can't immediately. Essentially, forcing the tactical choice of healing, but only once a player has been eliminated from the fight, and with some minor benefits for doing so.

I don't personally think either are that great an idea or that I would enjoy playing them, but there are others who seem to.

X-Codes

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3941
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2009, 02:20:50 AM »
Swift Action Cure Spells.  Everything else that heals is still a Standard Action, but Cure spells are a Swift Action.

Kuroimaken

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 6733
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2009, 03:09:44 PM »
Swift Action Cure Spells.  Everything else that heals is still a Standard Action, but Cure spells are a Swift Action.

One other thing: the Heal skill could use improvement. Lots and lots of improvement. All it does right now is make sure someone doesn't die when the party's bandaid is not around.
Gendou Ikari is basically Gregory House in Kaminashades. This is FACT.

For proof, look here:

http://www.layoutjelly.com/image_27/gendo_ikari/

[SPOILER]
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Katana of Enlightenment.
Get yours.[/SPOILER]

I HAVE BROKEN THE 69 INTERNETS BARRIER!


SiggyDevil

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1111
  • Magmar, the ultimate butthead
    • Feybook Project
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2009, 06:39:03 AM »
Swift Action Cure Spells.  Everything else that heals is still a Standard Action, but Cure spells are a Swift Action.

Better yet, a Cure that varies in intensity and effectiveness (restore limb, cure disease or poison, raise dead) depending on the amount of time you put in to it.

Immediate = basic restoration, small amount of HP, nothing special
Swift = enough HP restored to be worth something, maybe poison removed
Move = enough HP restored to undo a previous round's average amount of damage; can double up
Standard = as by the Move action and then some, remove disease
Full Round = more like the Heal spell but not as outright "screw you"; restore limb or part
10 rounds/1 minute, maybe longer = raise dead from fully intact body
1 hour or more = raise dead from pieces
1 day = resurrection from dust, spirit, or w/e

woodenbandman

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2188
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2009, 12:24:54 AM »
Why not just accept that healing sucks? Fighters suck, too. The only healing worth doing in combat is using that spell (Revivify?) that prevents a level loss if used within 1 round, before you can afford the true res. If you can't win an encounter when the cleric is contributing, then you're probably in an encounter wayyyy to hard for your party, whether because of levels or tactics.

Out of combat healing is still the best thing to do, even if in-combat healing is made awesome. The only healing in combat that matters is the healing that keeps the action exchange in your favor as far as possible. As long as you're alive and turning out damage, you're contributing to ending the battle, and thus reaching the healing.

dman11235

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1544
    • Email
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2009, 01:27:32 AM »
Because we want to fix it.
My sig's Handy Haversack: Need help?  Want to see what I've done?  Want to see what others have done well?  Check it out.


bihlbo

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2009, 08:41:54 AM »
I think 4th Edition's healing mechanic is not flawed and works well. Just as one small example, clerics get to spend a minor action to let an ally improve their healing surge value by a substantial amount. There are almost never better options for a cleric's minor action than a healing word. Quick Draw + healing potion is just as good, if costly. Second Wind is supposed to suck - it makes healing powers worthwhile. If you heal instead of doing something else, that's just one more ally that's not bloodied and still in the fight. Sure, it might have been more effective toward getting the BBEG killed to stun him (preventing more than a healing surge's damage), but then you're running the risk of losing one of the party for good. You trade off efficiency for acceptable risk.

I don't think the same should be true for 3.5 D&D however. Healing an ally should be just as good (if not better) than casting a spell that does damage. It could be better to paralyze an enemy, but I prefer to compare healing to damaging spells.

I'm glad this was brought up; there are few things to me that are more frustrating than the 3.5 Cure spells' healing progression. This is what I might do to them:

Cure Light Wounds - Heals caster level x 3 + 2d8 points of damage and an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Cure Moderate Wounds - Heals caster level x 4 + 2d10 points of damage and an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Cure Heavy Wounds - Heals caster level x 5 + 4d6 points of damage and an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Cure Serious Wounds - Heals caster level x 6 + 4d8 points of damage and an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Cure Critical Wounds - Heals caster level x 7 + 4d10 points of damage and an equal amount of nonlethal damage.
Cure Wounds - Heals all lethal and nonlethal damage to a target.

That's spell levels 1-6 for clerics.

I arrived at these numbers by comparing the following:
Flamestrike damage, straight sneak attack damage without extra feats or weapon damage, average barbarian damage. Cure heavy wounds heals twice this average, and every other level of the spell heals either less than this or more than this.

Result: ALL healing spells are viable at every level as healing spells (compared to a 1d8+5 from levels 5-20), but the most costly spells (ie: higher spell levels) do better healing. Also, healing is far more reliable. Downside: an empowered, maximized Cure heavy wounds would do (lvl x 5) + 24 + 2d6. That's an average healing bonus of only +17. That is pathetic for making it a spell even 2 levels higher. But, that's not all bad, as it gives an incentive to quicken healing spells instead.

Average healing for a level 12 cleric:
1st level spell: Cure Light Wounds - 45 hp
2nd level spell: Cure Moderate Wounds - 59 hp
3rd level spell: Cure Heavy Wounds - 74 hp
4th level spell: Cure Serious Wounds - 90 hp
5th level spell: Cure Critical Wounds - 106 hp
6th level spell: Cure Wounds - All hp.

Compare this to average hit points for level 12 characters:
 cleric Con 14: 81
 fighter con 18: 118
 barbarian con 22: 155

This might be too much healing, as it would result in fights having the potential for being much longer than 5 rounds.  :o

Tone it way down thus:
Cure Light Wounds - Heals caster level + 1d10
Cure Moderate Wounds - Heals caster level x 2 + 2d6
Cure Heavy Wounds - Heals caster level x 3 + 2d8
Cure Serious Wounds - Heals caster level x 4 + 2d10
Cure Critical Wounds - Heals caster level x 5 + 2d12
(7th or 8th level) Cure Wounds - Heals all
« Last Edit: January 18, 2009, 09:04:02 AM by bihlbo »
Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2009, 10:55:23 AM »
Why not just accept that healing sucks? Fighters suck, too. The only healing worth doing in combat is using that spell (Revivify?) that prevents a level loss if used within 1 round, before you can afford the true res. If you can't win an encounter when the cleric is contributing, then you're probably in an encounter wayyyy to hard for your party, whether because of levels or tactics.

Out of combat healing is still the best thing to do, even if in-combat healing is made awesome. The only healing in combat that matters is the healing that keeps the action exchange in your favor as far as possible. As long as you're alive and turning out damage, you're contributing to ending the battle, and thus reaching the healing.
Cause we want to fix it till its broke. LOL char ops motto suggestion.

This is all well and good I like the swift actions and all but inflict...
Inflict is really good at that point too.
I suppose thats equally awesome.
Equally awesome for evil clerics and what... anti healers? Cool. Cool.
Bihlbos fixes are cool too... but 4th's is shit too... but lets not split hairs.
But you do propose some really interesting things...
I think the swift action/immidiate action cure/infilct spells are the best option.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

bihlbo

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 142
Re: Healing in D&D sucks.
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2009, 07:08:43 PM »
Personally I'd rather consider backing off the cost to quicken a spell via the metamagic feat than making new spells that make heals faster.

For instance, if you're 7th level and cast cure critical you heal an average of 25hp.
Using my suggestions the new cure light wounds cast quickened for +3 spell levels would heal an average of 31hp. Not hugely better for the hp, but it's quick-cast. I might suggest a feat for clerics that lets them spend a turn attempt to quick-cast any heal spell without adding any spell levels.

I just thought of this: in my opinion the heal spell is worth casting in combat. It's a well-designed healing spell that the cure line aught to better emulate.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2009, 07:45:17 PM by bihlbo »
Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori