Using D&D 5e healing and banning CLW wands


Homebrew and House Rules

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:
As for what is claimed to be the "point" of this thread, I would never run an AP (or any other module, honestly), so, I have no idea how removing wands of clw would work. All I can say is that, in my own games, having no clw wands (or really, much in the way of magic at all, since no magic items and everyone I ran games for before last year has hated vancian magic with a passion and avoided it for the most part) never caused my group a problem.

Even if you don't use the APs and Modules, you have to admit they make an excellent benchmark for rule design. Without the context they provide, it's almost impossible to glean the designer intent when it comes to the intangibles in the system.


Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
As for what is claimed to be the "point" of this thread, I would never run an AP (or any other module, honestly), so, I have no idea how removing wands of clw would work. All I can say is that, in my own games, having no clw wands (or really, much in the way of magic at all, since no magic items and everyone I ran games for before last year has hated vancian magic with a passion and avoided it for the most part) never caused my group a problem.
Even if you don't use the APs and Modules, you have to admit they make an excellent benchmark for rule design. Without the context they provide, it's almost impossible to glean the designer intent when it comes to the intangibles in the system.

Just to derail that comment into a tangent for a moment:

I think that's true these days. APs being so much a part of Paizo's focus and modules being a good part of the effort for 3.x.

But from talking to "old-school" players from the AD&D days, I think it very much wasn't true back then. Those who learned their approach from modules, like me, wound up internalizing a very different style of play , one much more like today's, than the traditional old-school version. Less competitive, less fatal, less sandboxy, less focused on the challenge of getting characters to high level, more balanced, more story and character oriented.
Modules didn't reflect the original style of play, because that original style of play didn't translate well into a discrete published adventure. Much like sandbox modules still don't really work out well.


Yeah, that seems fairly accurate. I wouldn't necessarily agree with all of those things, but I will say growing up, teaching myself to play on AD&D as a little kid, and specifically NOT using modules of any kind, "modern D&D" is alien to me and I always have to make mental adjustments when talking on the forum--"no, people don't play like that..." or "wow, I forgot that was a houserule!"

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm currently in a PbP game of The Dragon's Demand, and my party uses CLW wands. I'd estimate that without them, we'd be calling it a day after one or two encounters (basically, as soon as the oracle ran out of spell slots). So a simple "explore the cave" turns into a week-long ordeal, and you start getting awkward plot developments.

For instance, one of your tasks is to basically raid a warren of kobolds. If we have to stop after the first encounter because we used up all four of our spells for healing, then will there be extra traps/ambushes waiting for us the next day? If so, then the difficulty has been drastically altered. But if not, then any sense of plot credulity has been shattered.

So yeah, getting rid of HappySticks without a similarly abundant alternative would have a HUGE impact on the game, and I'd call it a change for the worse.

Meanwhile, if instead our oracle could cast cures without spending spell slots, the only difference would be that the party as a whole would have about 1,000gp more cash (at almost 5th level). So, not a big difference. Letting the NPCs in the setting have the same ability wouldn't change much, either.


Jiggy wrote:

For instance, one of your tasks is to basically raid a warren of kobolds. If we have to stop after the first encounter because we used up all four of our spells for healing, then will there be extra traps/ambushes waiting for us the next day? If so, then the difficulty has been drastically altered. But if not, then any sense of plot credulity has been shattered.

See, the weird part of this for me is that the PCs would get so hurt so often. When they know they need to raid a whole warrens, why are they fighting headlong at all? Why aren't they waging a guerrilla warfare campaign, murdering kobolds in isolated pockets and making them fear you so you can set up a grand blustery display and intimidate them into submission (or you know, some other clever plan not reliant on taking kobold hits to the face over and over)?

And I know the answer is because in "modern D&D" dungeon crawls are not heists abd combat is "sport" not "war," but, yeah, it's wierd and I do need to think about it.


mplindustries wrote:
Jiggy wrote:

For instance, one of your tasks is to basically raid a warren of kobolds. If we have to stop after the first encounter because we used up all four of our spells for healing, then will there be extra traps/ambushes waiting for us the next day? If so, then the difficulty has been drastically altered. But if not, then any sense of plot credulity has been shattered.

See, the weird part of this for me is that the PCs would get so hurt so often. When they know they need to raid a whole warrens, why are they fighting headlong at all? Why aren't they waging a guerrilla warfare campaign, murdering kobolds in isolated pockets and making them fear you so you can set up a grand blustery display and intimidate them into submission (or you know, some other clever plan not reliant on taking kobold hits to the face over and over)?

And I know the answer is because in "modern D&D" dungeon crawls are not heists abd combat is "sport" not "war," but, yeah, it's wierd and I do need to think about it.

Because "heists" get you killed. Caper movies don't work without even more extensive cooperation with the author/GM.

I've never seen a party brilliant enough to actually pull off that kind of thing, unless the GM sets it up for them.

I'd just have the kobolds turn it into a guerilla campaign in reverse - fortifying their lair and using their superior knowledge of the surrounding area (It's their home, after all) to harass the PCs.

I don't remember the exact set up in that particular module though.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
mplindustries wrote:

When they know they need to raid a whole warrens, why are they fighting headlong at all? Why aren't they waging a guerrilla warfare campaign, murdering kobolds in isolated pockets and making them fear you so you can set up a grand blustery display and intimidate them into submission (or you know, some other clever plan not reliant on taking kobold hits to the face over and over)?

And I know the answer is because in "modern D&D" dungeon crawls are not heists abd combat is "sport" not "war," but, yeah, it's wierd and I do need to think about it.

No, that's not the answer at all.

The kobold warren isn't the only example. There's a lot of "explore this area" tasks, but then things jump out when you open the only door to a given room. The warren example might be able to be altered into guerilla warfare, but not every series of encounters will work that way.

It becomes "Do we have enough spell slots left to heal up again if there's something behind this door? No? Then I guess we go home. Again."

And even if we do turn a task/series of encounters into guerilla warfare, all it takes is one thing going wrong and suddenly we're taking damage have to go home after all.

Guerilla warfare and other risk-reducing angles will help with only certain types of challenges, and even then only if it all goes to plan. As soon as either the plan goes wrong or your challenge is something other than "kill all these people", you're back to the very un-fun and plot-straining paradigm of going home every few minutes.

And then on top of that, even if we "guerilla'd" the kobold warren, that would mean we're assuming that everyone needs to die/be met with force. There's no chance to try Diplomacy or to find allies within the warren or anything else. The guerilla heist strongly favors the murderhobo, which is something I hate playing as.

So no, it has nothing to do with "modern D&D" wanting to make combat into sport. It has to do with wanting to tell more than one kind of story (including some less-violent ones).


Jiggy wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

When they know they need to raid a whole warrens, why are they fighting headlong at all? Why aren't they waging a guerrilla warfare campaign, murdering kobolds in isolated pockets and making them fear you so you can set up a grand blustery display and intimidate them into submission (or you know, some other clever plan not reliant on taking kobold hits to the face over and over)?

And I know the answer is because in "modern D&D" dungeon crawls are not heists abd combat is "sport" not "war," but, yeah, it's wierd and I do need to think about it.

No, that's not the answer at all.

The kobold warren isn't the only example. There's a lot of "explore this area" tasks, but then things jump out when you open the only door to a given room. The warren example might be able to be altered into guerilla warfare, but not every series of encounters will work that way.

It becomes "Do we have enough spell slots left to heal up again if there's something behind this door? No? Then I guess we go home. Again."

And even if we do turn a task/series of encounters into guerilla warfare, all it takes is one thing going wrong and suddenly we're taking damage have to go home after all.

Guerilla warfare and other risk-reducing angles will help with only certain types of challenges, and even then only if it all goes to plan. As soon as either the plan goes wrong or your challenge is something other than "kill all these people", you're back to the very un-fun and plot-straining paradigm of going home every few minutes.

And then on top of that, even if we "guerilla'd" the kobold warren, that would mean we're assuming that everyone needs to die/be met with force. There's no chance to try Diplomacy or to find allies within the warren or anything else. The guerilla heist strongly favors the murderhobo, which is something I hate playing as.

So no, it has nothing to do with "modern D&D" wanting to make combat into sport. It has to do with wanting to tell more than one kind...

Even worse, especially after it turns into guerilla war, the question becomes "Do we have the spell slots to heal up if there's something behind this door and then to deal with attacks on the way home".

In the worst case scenario, you wind up worrying whether you have the resources to reach the area and get back to safety, even without exploring further.


My suggestion actually involved less death--it was a campaign of terror to make them more amenable to being intimidated into submission.

The few times I have run a "clearing out the warrens" sort of scenario, the strategy that the party has succeeded best with is shock and awe and taking captives. Get them to talk, and cowardly, self serving creatures like goblins and kobolds make deals and maybe turn on their own.

Most recently, this happened in 5e--the PCs blundered into a goblin ambush, withstood it and won the fight, then took the bodies with them. They just paid off the goblin's mercenary, an ogre, and then kicked in doors and tossed bodies before them with threats of "surrender or join them." They managed to capture a goblin alive and, with him, managed to form a conspiracy to depose the goblin king and replace him with their captive buddy. He led them around, got them an audience, and helped murder the elite guards and whatnot. Complex of 50 or so goblins conquered, less than a dozen dead, goblin allies for the future, and an ogre on the payroll.

But that's hardly the only way to do it. It's just one way. The point is, I never grew up with the idea of going room to room, opening the door, and fighting whatever is there.

And I am not insulting the new way to play (from my perspective). I am perfectly willing and coukd enjoy such a game. It's just not my roots--it's not how I want to run things.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

mplindustries wrote:
And I am not insulting the new way to play (from my perspective).

You're also not seeming to accept the existence of any situation other than your way and the thing you dub "the new way". There are more than two gameplay scenarios.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Let me give a clearer example:

Dragon's Demand Spoilers!:

One of your tasks is to enter a deceased wizard's estate and catalogue all his valuables (for an estate auction) while also neutralizing any threats so that nice people can clean up and whatnot safely.

The estate is a tower (a few stories tall) with an expansive basement complex. Your job mandates that you check every room. Some rooms contain hazards or monsters (such as a violent homunculus). Your job mandates that you neutralize them to make the structure safe for others.


How do you proceed?


Jiggy wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
And I am not insulting the new way to play (from my perspective).
You're also not seeming to accept the existence of any situation other than your way and the thing you dub "the new way". There are more than two gameplay scenarios.

That's why I tried to vlarify that it's new to me. I never really played the way I have heard old school games went, either.

Jiggy wrote:

Let me give a clearer example:

** spoiler omitted **
How do you proceed?

First, let me say that in general , I GM this kind of thing, so, I would waiting to see what a party tried.

If I was a PC, there's really not enough information, nor could you realistically give me enough outside of the context of playing the game.

What level am I? Party composition? What resources are available to me? What's the construction like? Do they have a floorplan for me? Who was this guy? Why is it full of hazards like that? What's nearby? Why would I take this job? Can I just say "no" and do something else?

Is there some kind of time limit? If it's a series of disconnected discrete encounters of a dead guy's property, it seems like I absolutely could just go and rest between encounters.

I understand your point, but a scenario like this would never cross my mind as sonething to do, though, again, I coykd totally enjoy it as a player.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have found that in 1e/2e I used to use the lack of HP recovery after an encounter to help with the pacing and placement of further encounters. In PF for sure CLW have changed the way I design an adventure. To start with it really bugged me, the players were nearly always on full HP's straight after the encounter. The idea of beaten and broken heroes facing the odds and winning through still appealed to the GM in me. Then I discovered 'conditions', I now use those liberally in adventures. It is quite normal for my players to safely have all their HP's but have conditions to deal with. For me at least the HP's resource I see as a static number at the start of any combat, but the conditions my players are afflicted with change the encounter.

If adventuring were easy every one would do it ;)


Outside PFS

- Bring back Cure/Inflict Minor Wound, it's time consuming, but not wealth wasting and not iritating for people who roll 1s or 2s on CLW almost all the times.

- Remove the Randomness from Cure and Inflict spells when used for healing.

Neither options remove the need for healing items, but reduce it to more manageable levels.


Stefan Hill wrote:

I have found that in 1e/2e I used to use the lack of HP recovery after an encounter to help with the pacing and placement of further encounters. In PF for sure CLW have changed the way I design an adventure. To start with it really bugged me, the players were nearly always on full HP's straight after the encounter. The idea of beaten and broken heroes facing the odds and winning through still appealed to the GM in me. Then I discovered 'conditions', I now use those liberally in adventures. It is quite normal for my players to safely have all their HP's but have conditions to deal with. For me at least the HP's resource I see as a static number at the start of any combat, but the conditions my players are afflicted with change the encounter.

If adventuring were easy every one would do it ;)

yes and no, fighting 'strong' opponants while low on resource should be rare. Atrition by number/quantity is more reasonable for low resource than atrition by quality. 'Strong' opponants should be fought while not too low on resource, otherwise a supposed CR = APL + 2 encounter could turn into an effective CR = APL +4 (or higher) encounter.


John Lynch 106,

For right or wrong, shifted the locus of discussion on 'your' thread has become, most people's experience with the game has become that in which PCs take whatever means they can to keep their HP nearest full as economically possible. It's just what many or most people do. So, if you want to change the means by which that occurs, without much regard for changing that trend itself, switching to an alternate method of healing is all-in-all a cosmetic change.

I am in the camp that since the PCs are going to do it anyway, might as well give it some cool factor. Healing Surges, 5E Hit Dice, Injury/Strain, Free Cures (Jiggy's suggestion), these all seem to accomplish what you are looking for, and, world-building implications aside, will end up saving your PCs a little gold, as the greatest side-effect.

And for what it's worth, as Stefan Hill has pointed out, you can still run your PCs ragged by engaging in clever DM machinations, but, this would be the exception, not the rule.


rainzax wrote:

John Lynch 106,

For right or wrong, shifted the locus of discussion on 'your' thread has become, most people's experience with the game has become that in which PCs take whatever means they can to keep their HP nearest full as economically possible. It's just what many or most people do. So, if you want to change the means by which that occurs, without much regard for changing that trend itself, switching to an alternate method of healing is all-in-all a cosmetic change.

I am in the camp that since the PCs are going to do it anyway, might as well give it some cool factor. Healing Surges, 5E Hit Dice, Injury/Strain, Free Cures (Jiggy's suggestion), these all seem to accomplish what you are looking for, and, world-building implications aside, will end up saving your PCs a little gold, as the greatest side-effect.

And for what it's worth, as Stefan Hill has pointed out, you can still run your PCs ragged by engaging in clever DM machinations, but, this would be the exception, not the rule.

Call it: the Encounter/CR system need a revamp/redisign. and "how to design and run encounters" need to be rethinked.


Alex G St-Amand wrote:
Call it: the Encounter/CR system need a revamp/redisign. and "how to design and run encounters" need to be rethinked.

how so?


rainzax wrote:
Alex G St-Amand wrote:
Call it: the Encounter/CR system need a revamp/redisign. and "how to design and run encounters" need to be rethinked.
how so?

the current system kinda asume the party takes on most fights with high/full HPs, the spellcaster having most/all of their spells, ****load of items, etc...

The CR system is less effective when it isn't the case and/or when the PC gears are bellow WBL.

or in resume; having boatloads of healing items is needed because the system make it so.


The assumptions are based on at-the-table experience. I agree that the easy availability of healing has an impact on play. Is it wrong to heal in-between encounters?

The CR system has internal consistency which is useful. Got a more or less optimized (or wealthy) party? Adjust up or down as needed.

What needs to be re-thought? Do you mean by game-designers or DMs?


rainzax wrote:

The assumptions are based on at-the-table experience. I agree that the easy availability of healing has an impact on play. Is it wrong to heal in-between encounters?

The CR system has internal consistency which is useful. Got a more or less optimized (or wealthy) party? Adjust up or down as needed.

What needs to be re-thought? Do you mean by game-designers or DMs?

Adjusting encounter require a certain system mastery, not all GM are good at it, and sometime, the GM just doesn't think about doing it.

it isn't wrong to heal between encounters, the problem is more the amount of damage that need to be healed between encounters.

as for the adjusting, I will point out that adjusting for optimization/wealth isn't the same as optimizing for health, the former is done beforehand, the later need to be done on the fly.


DM experience and system mastery have always been proportional, in any game, under any rules.

And once the DM gets to know their playgroup, the optimization and teamwork metrics tend not to grow by leaps and bounds, unless the player base is inconsistent from game to game.

So too table culture. Once a party figures out how to keep their HP up, and sees that it increases survivability (inexpensively too), they tend not to look back, often socializing the cost to the group.

Is this not true in your experience?


It's been my experience that CR vs. APL is not terribly useful, and that the GM does need to eyeball things, a lot.

But, CR is still fundamentally useful as a comparison between monsters -- a way to filter the rulebook into the general ballpark of what you need.

I've toyed with the notion of "fixing" the CR-vs-APL function, but it's just not worth the effort.

I don't think it has any appreciable effect on Hit Points. That is, however you do hit points, I don't think CR actually comes into play any more than it would anywhere else.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Alex G St-Amand wrote:

Outside PFS

- Bring back Cure/Inflict Minor Wound, it's time consuming, but not wealth wasting and not iritating for people who roll 1s or 2s on CLW almost all the times.

- Remove the Randomness from Cure and Inflict spells when used for healing.

Neither options remove the need for healing items, but reduce it to more manageable levels.

I'm considering a house rule for the second one. You can attempt a Heal check when spending 10 minutes providing care for a character. If successful, all cure spell, spell-like, and supernatural abilities targeting this character during the period are maximized as if subject to the Maximize Spell feat.


allow cure minor wounds from 3.5 as an infinite use 0 level spell in place of stabilize. it doesn't remove healing items entirely, but allows people to dedicate extra time to guaranteed max health health between fights, or simply make hit points a per encounter resource as per FF13


Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
allow cure minor wounds from 3.5 as an infinite use 0 level spell in place of stabilize. it doesn't remove healing items entirely, but allows people to dedicate extra time to guaranteed max health health between fights, or simply make hit points a per encounter resource as per FF13

My nickname for Cure/Inflict Minor Wounds is Cure/Inflict Scratches.

and yeah, it wouldn't remove the need for healing items (especially if the healer has a tendency to end up uncouncious on the floor, bleeding...)


Technically it works, but it's one of those things I find hard to imagine doing in reality: You know how frustrating minor repetitive tasks get. Now cast this spell, over and over, 100 times.

Yes, it's the efficient way to do it and in the game you'll handwave it, but still.

Would you play a video game that had that as a healing mechanism? And actually made you push the keys and watch the little animation every time.

If you're going to give free out of combat healing, just give free out of combat healing.


thejeff wrote:

Technically it works, but it's one of those things I find hard to imagine doing in reality: You know how frustrating minor repetitive tasks get. Now cast this spell, over and over, 100 times.

Yes, it's the efficient way to do it and in the game you'll handwave it, but still.

Would you play a video game that had that as a healing mechanism? And actually made you push the keys and watch the little animation every time.

If you're going to give free out of combat healing, just give free out of combat healing.

that is why the other suggestion is to allow all hit points and all spell slots spent on direct damage or healing spells a character knows or prepares to recharge with a 5 minute rest.


my suggestion? you know or prepare a spell that simply and solely either inflicts or heals direct damage? you can use it at will as long as you have it prepared, whether fireball or magic missile. you still have to do the required action taxes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I think unlimited healing to that extent would really break the system, Rin. It's video gamish and very high fantasy. Also, it's going to rapidly start obviating melees if you can cycle out endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes. especially if they are meta'd.

==Aelryinth


Aelryinth wrote:

I think unlimited healing to that extent would really break the system, Rin. It's video gamish and very high fantasy. Also, it's going to rapidly start obviating melees if you can cycle out endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes. especially if they are meta'd.

==Aelryinth

most of those damage spells you mention, endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes are actually less damage than a fighter or barbarian can do that round, and well it reduces the need to rest while empowering melee because it makes those casters more likely to prepare a damage spell or few, and meta-ing a damage spell still requires them to prepare that spell metaed, where i have no problem with 90 damage save for half fireballs when martial characters are doing much more with a bow or 2handed weapon, plus it draws casters away from save or die/save or suck by making damage options worth considering

and unlimited healing spells don't really break the system, it just means characters are at full health between fights, that PCs actually spend resources saving each other's characters, because they still have to prepare the spell, metamagics and all with a spell slot or spell known to gain the at will feature and unlimited healing helps martial characters more than it helps casters, because a fighter's or rogue's sole resource is hit points

but monsters with spellcasting or class levels gain this ability too. spell caps are still enforced and really, i don't care how many metamagicked fireballs or shocking grasps or polar rays you throw, most of them still don't keep up with an archer or 2handed weapon user. plus it combats the 15 minute adventuring day which is think is more high fantasy than spammable fireballs and out of combat heals. JRPGs do it all the time, and martial damage already outpaces even the beast healing abilities in the game. i think the 15 minute adventuring day is more gamey than spammable direct damage and minor heals. what i propose is intended to make healers less selfish with their heals and give ranged artillery casters a means to reliably deal damage. the exchange is that wands, scrolls, potions, metamagic rods, pearls of power and staves are banned.


Someone mentioned the idea that 5th edition monsters deal less damage than Pathfinder monsters and so 5th edition can support less healing resources while Pathfinder doesn't work in that metric.

However at least up to CR 10 this appears to be completely wrong. Going off Surf Archer's 5th edition Math the target damage is 61. Going with the average of the high damage and low damage from Pathfinder's monster creation guidelines the "target" damage is 39 damage for a CR 10 monster while in 5th ed it's 61.

To me this suggests that Pathfinder's base system should be able to handle hit dice healing PCs. Now the question is: Can the AP's?


John Lynch 106 wrote:

Someone mentioned the idea that 5th edition monsters deal less damage than Pathfinder monsters and so 5th edition can support less healing resources while Pathfinder doesn't work in that metric.

However at least up to CR 10 this appears to be completely wrong. Going off Surf Archer's 5th edition Math the target damage is 61. Going with the average of the high damage and low damage from Pathfinder's monster creation guidelines the "target" damage is 39 damage for a CR 10 monster while in 5th ed it's 61.

To me this suggests that Pathfinder's base system should be able to handle hit dice healing PCs. Now the question is: Can the AP's?

Are those damage estimates adjusted for hit probability?


JoeJ wrote:

Are those damage estimates adjusted for hit probability?

No, but then again neither are the Pathfinder ones.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I think unlimited healing to that extent would really break the system, Rin. It's video gamish and very high fantasy. Also, it's going to rapidly start obviating melees if you can cycle out endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes. especially if they are meta'd.

==Aelryinth

most of those damage spells you mention, endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes are actually less damage than a fighter or barbarian can do that round, and well it reduces the need to rest while empowering melee because it makes those casters more likely to prepare a damage spell or few, and meta-ing a damage spell still requires them to prepare that spell metaed, where i have no problem with 90 damage save for half fireballs when martial characters are doing much more with a bow or 2handed weapon, plus it draws casters away from save or die/save or suck by making damage options worth considering

and unlimited healing spells don't really break the system, it just means characters are at full health between fights, that PCs actually spend resources saving each other's characters, because they still have to prepare the spell, metamagics and all with a spell slot or spell known to gain the at will feature and unlimited healing helps martial characters more than it helps casters, because a fighter's or rogue's sole resource is hit points

but monsters with spellcasting or class levels gain this ability too. spell caps are still enforced and really, i don't care how many metamagicked fireballs or shocking grasps or polar rays you throw, most of them still don't keep up with an archer or 2handed weapon user. plus it combats the 15 minute adventuring day which is think is more high fantasy than spammable fireballs and out of combat heals. JRPGs do it all the time, and martial damage already outpaces even the beast healing abilities in the game. i think the 15 minute adventuring day is more gamey than spammable direct damage and...

A properly meta'd fireball at 10th level from a well-made blaster is dealing 100 hit points of area damage...that is, to multiple opponents. A Scorching Ray can do even more, from a distance, to a single target, or spread to multiple targets, and you never run out of ammunition, unlike an archer, and you don't need a magic bow.

3 Mages stacking AoE's on top of multiple enemies will deal far more damage in aggregate then 3 melees, and at range. I don't even want to think what this kind of unlimited firepower would do on a battlefield. And, of course, if turned on the party, the party is hosed. Initiative again becomes the defining roll, and rocket tag starts alive and well. No conservation of firepower, at all. Save or die moves from death magic to save against 3 fireballs dealing 100 dmg each, or die. Just, ugh.

3E gave mages unlimited firepower with the Reserve feats, but the cost was not casting a good spell, lower range, smaller area, and half the damage of a cast spell. It was a fair tradeoff. They always remained relevant, but never dominating with the endless firepower.

==Aelryinth


5E gave casters unlimited effective combat cantrips. Something like that might work, but unlimited spammable high end damage spells that you can stack metamage, bloodline and other damage boosting tricks on is going too far, for my tastes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

John Lynch 106 wrote:
JoeJ wrote:

Are those damage estimates adjusted for hit probability?

No, but then again neither are the Pathfinder ones.

There's a lot of swing in damage once you adjust for hit probability. If 5e is using the 50% hit paradigm, that's a major adjustment. I'm not sure what PF uses.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

The Damage column in Pathfinder's Monster Creation Chart is the total damage dealt if every single attack hits.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Which doesn't answer the question.

4e, for instance, operated on a 40 to 60% hit paradigm.

Pathfinder tends to default to more the primary attack almost always hits, and iteratives are the things that miss. It makes a huge difference in damage calculations.

==Aelryinth


5e doesn't really assume any hit rate. It's all over the board. In general, though, everyone gets more accurate over time. AC doesn't change as you level, but attack bonuses add proficiency, which does.


Aelryinth wrote:
Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Aelryinth wrote:

I think unlimited healing to that extent would really break the system, Rin. It's video gamish and very high fantasy. Also, it's going to rapidly start obviating melees if you can cycle out endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes. especially if they are meta'd.

==Aelryinth

most of those damage spells you mention, endless fireballs, shocking grasps, polar rays, chain lightnings and firesnakes are actually less damage than a fighter or barbarian can do that round, and well it reduces the need to rest while empowering melee because it makes those casters more likely to prepare a damage spell or few, and meta-ing a damage spell still requires them to prepare that spell metaed, where i have no problem with 90 damage save for half fireballs when martial characters are doing much more with a bow or 2handed weapon, plus it draws casters away from save or die/save or suck by making damage options worth considering

and unlimited healing spells don't really break the system, it just means characters are at full health between fights, that PCs actually spend resources saving each other's characters, because they still have to prepare the spell, metamagics and all with a spell slot or spell known to gain the at will feature and unlimited healing helps martial characters more than it helps casters, because a fighter's or rogue's sole resource is hit points

but monsters with spellcasting or class levels gain this ability too. spell caps are still enforced and really, i don't care how many metamagicked fireballs or shocking grasps or polar rays you throw, most of them still don't keep up with an archer or 2handed weapon user. plus it combats the 15 minute adventuring day which is think is more high fantasy than spammable fireballs and out of combat heals. JRPGs do it all the time, and martial damage already outpaces even the beast healing abilities in the game. i think the 15 minute adventuring day is

A properly meta'd fireball at 10th level from a well-made blaster is dealing 100 hit points of area damage...that is, to multiple opponents. A Scorching Ray can do even more, from a distance, to a single target, or spread to multiple targets, and you never run out of ammunition, unlike an archer, and you don't need a magic bow.

3 Mages stacking AoE's on top of multiple enemies will deal far more damage in aggregate then 3 melees, and at range. I don't even want to think what this kind of unlimited firepower would do on a battlefield. And, of course, if turned on the party, the party is hosed. Initiative again becomes the defining roll, and rocket tag starts alive and well. No conservation of firepower, at all. Save or die moves from death magic to save against 3 fireballs dealing 100 dmg each, or die. Just, ugh.

3E gave mages unlimited firepower with the Reserve feats, but the cost was not casting a good spell, lower range, smaller area, and half the damage of a cast spell. It was a fair tradeoff. They always remained relevant, but never dominating with the endless firepower.

==Aelryinth

if you are honestly so worried, give every caster a free reserve feat off the bat remove the half max HP limitation on healing touch

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

No, I'd keep the half hp limitation right on there. Healing reserve is an awesome feat and ability...if it exists, every healer should take it for unlimited healing. restricting it to half max hit points just means you need at least SOMETHING else to get back to full health.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Personally I'd boost it to 3/4. At high levels the fact that you can heal up to half hp is all but useless. What good is being healed to 150 hp when you max at 300? The wizard is going to want more than 30 of his 60 hp.

If you're looking to combat the 15 minute day, I'd suggest looking at the recharge magic rules of 3.5 D&D as inspiration.


I use a system cobbled together from various sources, (Kirthfinder is my main resource).

In my games, there are no wands at all. I never liked the "throw away magic item".

Magic healing is maximized out of combat and rolled as normal in combat.

HPs are not rolled. Each level you get a standard number based on HD (d6=4, d8=6, d10=8, and d12=10)
This gives my players more HPs and allows me to make my games a bit rougher on them. I also apply these numbers to their enemies.

Heal checks are against DC15, and will restore a number of HPs in excess of the check (example: you get a 25 on the check, you restore 10 HP)
The check consumes one use of a heal kit and can only be done once per amount of damage taken (trap, combat, etc.)

As for wounds/vitality or injury/strain, I use the following system, taken directly from Kirthfinder. I love the idea that a person/creature is not 100% effective from max HP to zero HP.

BATTLE FATIGUE
First: Fatigue and exhaustion affect mental stats, not just physical ones (see Conditions, below). This is true in life, and should be true in the game as well in order to make the mechanics run more smoothly and to preserve some semblance of balance.
The optional rule outlined below is a two-edged sword: it allows accumulated hit point damage to hinder combat effectiveness. This tends to slightly improve the overall effectiveness of melee and of evocation spells, vis-à-vis battlefield-control spells. However, it also inhibits “Die Hard” scenarios for PCs, by presenting them with penalties for wounds.

Light Wound: When using this rule, loss of half of a character’s normal (full) hp is considered a light wound. Upon incurring a light wound, any living creature with a discernable anatomy is unable to take a 5-ft. step for the remainder of that round. Thereafter, lightly wounded creatures are fatigued, suffering a –1 fatigue penalty to attacks, damage, AC, saves, and all checks (including concentration checks) and to the save DC of spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. This flat penalty is to simplify applying the effects of the normal –2 attribute penalties for fatigue, and also serves to inconvenience casters as much as it does warriors.

Heavy Wound: At one-fourth his or her normal total hp, a character is heavily wounded (and also must succeed at a DC 20 Fort or be dazed 1 round) and exhausted, suffering a –3 fatigue penalty to attacks, damage, AC, saves, and all checks (including concentration checks), and to the save DCs of spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Again, this simplifies the effects of the –6 attribute penalties. A creature incurring a heavy wound is unable to take a 5-ft. step for the remainder of that round.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

A heal kit thus becomes your throw away item :)

3/4 hit point isn't so bad, either, but it definitely shouldn't be full. Half health for no cost reduces the importance of other healing, but doesn't completely obviate it.

I'm of the belief you shouldn't go into every fight with full health without burning something. With healing reserve to 100%, you burn nothing but time. You may as well give everyone in the party regeneration and stop heaping the cost on the priest.

Wounding is realistic but slows the game down. I'm okay with handwaving it just for that reason.

Wounds/Vitality is another system you can use to auto-heal. Simply treat 'wounds' as physical, and Vitality as either temporary hit points or subdual damage. Recover Vitality at an accelerated, natural rate, and recover wounds via the Heal skill or Healing magic. Furthermore, the character could make the choice between taking physical or 'magical' damage, by assigning to one or the other...choosing to get rid of it naturally, or making it easy for the healer to dispose of.

I actually use it, calling it 'health' and 'Soak', and 'Soak' is actually considered 'warrior's magic'. The ability to fall from 100', get up and walk away without a scratch is 'warrior's magic'. When the giant hits you, you slam into a wall thirty feet away, and instantly charge back into combat without blinking an eye, that's Soak at work.

Soak is only gained from class levels. Racial and monster hit dice gets you health. Which can be fun if you're hacking on a quickling and find the bugger is as hard to cut as iron.

==Aelryinth

Grand Lodge

Because 3.5/PF doesn't have healing surges, I actually like the idea of reserve points. It's not the greatest, but it gives you back a few hp based on how long you rest between encounters. This can also help the 15 minute day as the healer's not needing to channel as much. And the nice thing for the GM is that it's a double-edged sword. Sure the players can heal, but if they take CON damage, it comes off both pools, and comes off their hp twice if the reserve pool is empty. So if the players are constantly relying on it instead of actual healing, it could get pretty dicey.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Reserve points look pretty workable, too. It would work particularly well if martial classes really do get HP bonuses over caster classes, too.

==Aelryinth


even if you burn a long time using a reserve feat to heal everyone to full, you still burnt time, meaning buffs will eventually start to wear off, and even if hit points are a per encounter resource, there are better means to heal in combat that consume resources and well, it frees up divine casters to have resources dedicated to things that aren't healing, allowing oracles and clerics to have more fun, and also combating the 15 minute adventure day. all limited healing does, is encourage the 15 minute adventure day. players should be able to heal to full between fights


It took this thread more than a month to be revived. Obviously, this thread is not using D&D 5e healing, or it would have recovered more quickly:P

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think the bigger question that needs to be asked is as a GM do you want your players to have full health for every fight or to have to juggle resources and the risk/reward of going in underpowered?

If the former than the CLW wand fills that role already it just separates it from being a particular classes sole responsibility and allows all characters to equally bare the burden.

If the latter than removing CLW wands from the equation and replacing it with something just as cheap and still not bared by one individual just continues that issue and to address it likely involves the change of the way people approach dungeon and encounter design rather than just adding a new ways to perform the "resource revive" in each dungeon.

101 to 150 of 157 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Using D&D 5e healing and banning CLW wands All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.