House rule: cure spells are swift actions

[Coidzor]

There is precedence with close wounds

True, though I think it might be a bit more comfortable/smoother to expand Close Wounds into a line of spells on its own or combine it into a sub-option of the Cure line than to convert the main line of healing spells to immediate actions only.

(edit: Also, thank you for the reminder that Close Wounds exists.)

I don't see the need to make cure spells swift actions. And I feel like making them a ranged spell should require some trade off.

I think it depends on how they're buffed. I could certainly see it shaking out that the amount they heal is roughly fine for something dropped as a supplement to the main actions taken that round, and so developing an offshoot to cover some level of swift-action healing or expanding close wounds to cover swift/immediate action healing niche.

What sort of trade-off though? Currently raising the spell level is too much of one and the main option for doing so as RAW stands. Include an option for using either the original or a slightly buffed version of the cure line at range instead of the better value touch-range standard use revamp?

Instead, rather than 1d8+caster level (with higher level ones just adding a bit more D8), I'd say to make them scale the way the other spells do. I'd alter the spells a bit something like this (actually, I might be able to get someone to test this):

Cantrip: Cure Wound for 1 point of damage.
1. Cure Minor Wounds for 1d2 per caster level.
2.Cure Light Wounds for 1d4 per caster level. Mass Cure Wounds (being a higher level spell, this one can scale point per caster level like the others).
3. Cure Moderate Wounds for 1d6 per caster level. Mass Cure Light.
4. Cure Serious Wounds for 1d8 per caster level. Mass Cure Light.
5. Cure Critical Wounds for 1d10 per caster level. Mass Cure Moderate.
6. Heal for a full 12 per caster level. Mass Cure Serious.
7. Mass Cure Critical.
8. Mass Heal.

Maybe the single target ones can have a cap of 20 for caster level, and the Mass versions just 10, justifying the lesser max by being able to heal multiple targets at once, which seems like an even trade off. A Cleric gains 6th level spells at Caster Level 11 if not multiclassing at all. Heal would cure 120 points of healing to one target, with a bunch of other abilities healed, too. Mass Cure Serious would cure on average 40 points to a single target, but if it heals even 3 people for that much or more, it's made itself as useful in most cases. Currently a Cleric would gain 2d8+caster level max 30 Cure Moderate Mass. Which doesn't seem as hot in comparison.

Interesting idea. I kinda wanna try out that idea along with Psyren's take for (XdY+Z)*CL as the model. Partially because I'm just tickled by the idea of being able to use (A+B)*C in D&D... sorta...

I'm slightly torn between this idea of stretching up the Cure line of spells to 5th to meet Heal at 6th and lowering Heal down to a 5th level spell, standardly, though. I like how Heal and Cure Critical are differentiated here, though. Maybe incorporate some other ideas and add on progressive anti-debuff riders as the Cure line progresses up until it gets its Heal on?

Definitely would be interested in the result of testing. My biggest concern, I think, would be low levels, such as level 1 where the party's cleric can only heal 1d2 damage a pop. Less problematic with something like infinite cantrips/orisons, but could be a source of wonkiness until 3rd or 4th level, maybe. Going with 1d2 for cure wounds and then 1d3+X for cure minor and 1d4+Y for cure light, and so on might help with that, though it'd also quite probably require rejiggering Heal again to some extent.

While the percent based options are interesting, and probably helpful, I don't see any reason to make the cure spells function so much more differently by design than the large majority of the other spells. And I find making them heal less to a lower level or lower total hp target than a higher level or higher hp target to be weird, despite the fact that the same spell should heal the same to each, but just be worth different amounts. I might just not be getting the point.

I guess it was just one way of approaching allowing them more relevance at later levels/greater effect out of combat for filling back up and then getting on with things. If you expand their scalability instead of just buffing the static number of dice though, that seems like it eliminates the need for that.

I'd make the cures/inflicts swift actions when used to heal, and in addition create more standard action healing spells such as.

Area healing spells-these could be interesting in that they (like damage spells) do not differentiate between friend and foe.

Heal+debuff removal spells-One of the things that makes the "Heal" spell so good. These would be the direct counterpart to damage+debuff spells.

Heal+buff spells-healing is generally seen as reactive (undoing damage) rather than proactive (preventing damage), but these new spells would combine a little of both. Heal up and use the buff to hopefully need less healing later.

And finally, spontaneous casters who chose to learn a cure spell add the other cure spells to their spells known as well.

Maybe this would overdo it...but frankly I wouldn't mind seeing what an optimized healer plays like with these modifications.

AoE healing spells definitely seem like they'd be interesting, though I'm not quite sure what model would be best to start working from, especially with the disincentive to bunch up anyway. Though I suppose if they were powerful enough to incentivize bunching up, that'd be potentially a win or at least a wash for AoE blasting, too... Or at least have a clear metric for pitting them against one another to see how they stack up...

The main issue with this that I can see is the workload generated, since once you start doing that, it'll probably make some other areas seem all the more glaring and in need of remedy, as well as actually coming up with appropriate buffs to add. Debuff removal sounds more workable though, and I'd say that between Panacea's precedent and the potential evolution of adding on heal+debuff removal to the Cure Line as they progress to meet Heal that it'd probably be fairly doable.

Definitely agree with the point about Spontaneous casters, though. It'd actually allow Favored Souls to be Healer-types, which may or may not be good, in the long run. xD

Definitely something to consider how Op-Fu would influence things, aye. And potentially interesting to watch in action.

[INoKnowNames]

First, wow. So unprofessional that I did 2 Mass Cure Lights in my write up. I meant for the first one to obviously be a Mass Cure Minor. That's my fault for doing this stuff when I'm supposed to be asleep.

I think it depends on how they're buffed. I could certainly see it shaking out that the amount they heal is roughly fine for something dropped as a supplement to the main actions taken that round, and so developing an offshoot to cover some level of swift-action healing or expanding close wounds to cover swift/immediate action healing niche.

What sort of trade-off though? Currently raising the spell level is too much of one and the main option for doing so as RAW stands. Include an option for using either the original or a slightly buffed version of the cure line at range instead of the better value touch-range standard use revamp?

My initial thoughts when I tried to compile my adjustments were that between lowering the level of the point where one gains access to the mass cures (the first core mass is the still very weak Light Mass, and as a 5th level spell, where as my slightly buffed version is made available as a 2nd level spell), and Close Wounds being able to cover emergency "You need to stand up Now!" situations, that if anything needed to be done it could be more or less handled. Expanding Close Wounds a bit to continue to cover the "Emergency! Emergency" niche while letting the Cures handle the "Let's actually get your organs back inside you while I have a second." niche seems like what I'd choose to do. Close Grievous Wounds and Mass versions of Each come to mind.

Interesting idea. I kinda wanna try out that idea along with Psyren's take for (XdY+Z)*CL as the model. Partially because I'm just tickled by the idea of being able to use (A+B)*C in D&D... sorta...

Yay, I'm helping!

I'm slightly torn between this idea of stretching up the Cure line of spells to 5th to meet Heal at 6th and lowering Heal down to a 5th level spell, standardly, though. I like how Heal and Cure Critical are differentiated here, though. Maybe incorporate some other ideas and add on progressive anti-debuff riders as the Cure line progresses up until it gets its Heal on?

I wanted to respect how even most optimizers here appreciate the Heal spell, so I didn't want to move it too far from it's pedestal, though I don't think it'd hurt the system too much to do so, so long as other spells around that level (Panacea come to mind) are also dropped. Though the poor Healer class loses out on one of it's biggest advantages that way.

To help make the others more relevant in different situations, I suppose incorporating other antidebuff cures into them shouldn't hurt, though I would mind at what level those antidebuffs are made available, for the sake of not entirely invalidating the "fixes just one negative condition" spells. To make this not sound like gibberish, at 1st level a Cleric has access to remove fear. I'd rather not allow Cure Light Wounds the ability to remove fear as well as heal. Maybe Cure Moderate.

I'd also note that for adding these additional effects, Inflict Spells, which should still function similar to the Cure counter parts, are kinda getting the shaft, unless they get some bonus. That's another reason why I say to fix the Cure spells with the least maintenance possible.

Definitely would be interested in the result of testing. My biggest concern, I think, would be low levels, such as level 1 where the party's cleric can only heal 1d2 damage a pop. Less problematic with something like infinite cantrips/orisons, but could be a source of wonkiness until 3rd or 4th level, maybe. Going with 1d2 for cure wounds and then 1d3+X for cure minor and 1d4+Y for cure light, and so on might help with that, though it'd also quite probably require rejiggering Heal again to some extent.

I was actually thinking that one could use the Heal Skill to be able to heal based on individual injury, with the spells being for when you absolutely positively must restore hit points immediately, at least until they are strong enough to provide for most of the healing. I've actually also considered adding one's ranks or result in the heal skill to the amount healed, though maybe that might require a feat if the full result can get added, due to how high some skill checks can be made.

I guess it was just one way of approaching allowing them more relevance at later levels/greater effect out of combat for filling back up and then getting on with things. If you expand their scalability instead of just buffing the static number of dice though, that seems like it eliminates the need for that.

The most important thing in my book, aside from keeping things both good and balanced, is that the spells not seem out of place too hard. Healing can and should be a thing, but the more extensive a fix is for something so simple, the more I think too much effort is being put into it. And I still hate the idea of a spell healing two targets at equal levels for different amounts. It messes with my fake ocd.

[Thiyr]

So. Quick thoughts on what you threw out there, I-no. I think with bigger effects, you can get away with standard action costs, but swift action healing deff has its place as well. I think that's why CDH is so intriguing to me. It neatly rolls up cost vs reward conceptually. Downside of course being how the cost and the rewards really doesn't match up at all. I think ranged heals still really need to be a baseline though. Otherwise, at least from that encounter design standpoint, all that changes is that dumb opponents (that is, animal intelligence) will be easy to take down, while anyone capable of recognizing there is a healer will just target the guy a square behind the meat. Melee will 5-foot step and paste the heals, archers and casters will light them up like the Fourth of July or fill them up with enough munitions to stock a small army, and all of a round (and a PC) is lost. Range at least offers a bit more protection there.

As far as the actual numbers thrown out, coidzor had a good point as far as "only 1d2 at first level is kinda really rough". Later on it has potential, but comparing by way of avg dmg healed, your cure minor only beats the efficiency of the normal cure light at caster level 7, and even then only because the normal CLW has a cap at CL5. Higher level spells scale better in your setup, but your cuew light only beats stock cure mod at CL7 as well. Next level up that point is CL6. The 4th level spells is where it starts off superior, which again, is at CL 7.

Further, compare healing to doing damage again. Just pulling some iconic blast spells from the phb, magic missile is slightly more efficient than your first level heal. Scorching ray blows second level out of the water. Fireball matches at 3rd, but also hits an area. 4th doesn't really -have- an iconic blast spell. Still, overall it again comes back to 4th level spells/CL7 being where your setup pulls ahead.

Now, maybe with heal checks brought in, it could work out better, but just from what I see, its mostly fixing things up later on. If that was your aim, it works out, but...feels off to me. I will say I like the "mass cure one level up" thing though. Definitely makes group heals more viable. Probably always gonna be the most efficient option if there is more than one person hurt, though. Something to consider.

Edit: also, I find d2s to be something to be cautious of. Most people don't have dedicated d2s, and there's always the "wait, was heads 1 or 2?" when using coins. Also, flipping a lot of coins can slow things down a bit. Just another consideration from a playability standpoint.

[Coidzor]

So. Quick thoughts on what you threw out there, I-no. I think with bigger effects, you can get away with standard action costs, but swift action healing deff has its place as well. I think that's why CDH is so intriguing to me. It neatly rolls up cost vs reward conceptually. Downside of course being how the cost and the rewards really doesn't match up at all.

Sorry, I think I've missed something here. What's CDH again?

I think ranged heals still really need to be a baseline though. Otherwise, at least from that encounter design standpoint, all that changes is that dumb opponents (that is, animal intelligence) will be easy to take down, while anyone capable of recognizing there is a healer will just target the guy a square behind the meat. Melee will 5-foot step and paste the heals, archers and casters will light them up like the Fourth of July or fill them up with enough munitions to stock a small army, and all of a round (and a PC) is lost. Range at least offers a bit more protection there.

Yeah... I probably haven't been weighing that as much as I should've been either. I think part of what makes me leery is also making the Inflict line ranged or only allowing either line of spells to be ranged if they're being used to heal.

Since if we get the cure line up to do relevant amounts of healing then unless it's decoupled from the inflict line, that means that the Inflict line become very good for single-target ranged blasting, and if we make healing superior to blasting in terms of the numbers game, that'd make inflict into super blasting(?). Though maybe some restriction like half the effect when using it to damage as to heal? Though that'd be a bit wonky with the Inflict line since healing undead seems to be an afterthought.

Maybe change the names and fluff of the lines of spells a bit so they both primarily focus on healing Positive or Negative energy based creatures respectively?

As far as the actual numbers thrown out, coidzor had a good point as far as "only 1d2 at first level is kinda really rough". Later on it has potential, but comparing by way of avg dmg healed, your cure minor only beats the efficiency of the normal cure light at caster level 7, and even then only because the normal CLW has a cap at CL5. Higher level spells scale better in your setup, but your cuew light only beats stock cure mod at CL7 as well. Next level up that point is CL6. The 4th level spells is where it starts off superior, which again, is at CL 7.

That's part of why I like the stabilizing effect of some static anchor, potentially one based upon the spell level. 5+1d2 = 6-7 hp per heal is much more reasonable than healing 1 or 2 hp per spell, especially when an orison will always heal 1 hp anyway. Maybe still a bit low though. 10+1d2 for 11-12 hp healed is definitely a step up from the original CLW, especially at higher levels. and in either case, the static anchor will get overshadowed by the dice at higher levels.

Further, compare healing to doing damage again. Just pulling some iconic blast spells from the phb, magic missile is slightly more efficient than your first level heal. Scorching ray blows second level out of the water. Fireball matches at 3rd, but also hits an area. 4th doesn't really -have- an iconic blast spell. Still, overall it again comes back to 4th level spells/CL7 being where your setup pulls ahead.

Not sure how best to address that aspect, though...

Now, maybe with heal checks brought in, it could work out better, but just from what I see, its mostly fixing things up later on. If that was your aim, it works out, but...feels off to me. I will say I like the "mass cure one level up" thing though. Definitely makes group heals more viable. Probably always gonna be the most efficient option if there is more than one person hurt, though. Something to consider.

What, you mean like allowing heal checks to heal HP damage? Depending upon how you jiggered that, it'd probably take care of the out of combat healing pretty handily, I suppose, leaving spells to mostly be used in combat scenarios...

Definitely seems like something to consider. Wait... Isn't there already a skill trick or something in 3.5 that allows something similar?

Edit: also, I find d2s to be something to be cautious of. Most people don't have dedicated d2s, and there's always the "wait, was heads 1 or 2?" when using coins. Also, flipping a lot of coins can slow things down a bit. Just another consideration from a playability standpoint.

(1d3-1)s or 1d3s would simulate them well enough and be quicker to roll, since d6s are the easiest die type to come across, IIRC. The only issue would be the minor difference between a naked 1d3 and a naked 1d4, though the 1d3-1 avoids that, I think.

First, wow. So unprofessional that I did 2 Mass Cure Lights in my write up. I meant for the first one to obviously be a Mass Cure Minor. That's my fault for doing this stuff when I'm supposed to be asleep.

I got ya anyway after I double checked, thankfully.

My initial thoughts when I tried to compile my adjustments were that between lowering the level of the point where one gains access to the mass cures (the first core mass is the still very weak Light Mass, and as a 5th level spell, where as my slightly buffed version is made available as a 2nd level spell), and Close Wounds being able to cover emergency "You need to stand up Now!" situations, that if anything needed to be done it could be more or less handled. Expanding Close Wounds a bit to continue to cover the "Emergency! Emergency" niche while letting the Cures handle the "Let's actually get your organs back inside you while I have a second." niche seems like what I'd choose to do. Close Grievous Wounds and Mass versions of Each come to mind.

Close Wounds is already multitarget, I had thought. I'll go re-read it in a moment to doublecheck that... Not quite sure how you'd make a mass version unless you just made it into X number of smallish bursts or a single larger burst?

Yay, I'm helping!

It's almost like we're actually bouncing ideas around in a roughly civil manner, or something. I'm so out of my element here! x.x

I wanted to respect how even most optimizers here appreciate the Heal spell, so I didn't want to move it too far from it's pedestal, though I don't think it'd hurt the system too much to do so, so long as other spells around that level (Panacea come to mind) are also dropped. Though the poor Healer class loses out on one of it's biggest advantages that way.

Yeah, don't want to give out too much earlier on and do away with Heal. One of the main real things I've heard said against Heal is that it's considered to be maybe a spell level too high, at least if I'm recollecting correctly, and definitely a bit too high of a level for Druids, which part of why I like bringing Heal down to 5th level in addition to making it so that there's not a dead level in healing spells between the Cure Line and Heal.

Definitely a good point about having to then take other spells like panacea into account, I'd overlooked the potential ramifications beyond the HP game.

True, the Healer does lose out a little bit on that. On the other hand, revamping and beefing up the healing spells that are the Healer's bread and butter still boosts up the Healer's ability to do its job. Whether it shapes up like how the revamp to the skill system in Pathfinder mostly did away with the niche for Rogues as being skillmonkeys without a good set of synergistic features or something more to back it up, is something that'd probably vary a bit and would be soething to keep in mind.

I think some might consider it a sign they've hit their benchmarks and others a thing to be avoided... I'm not quite sure where I'd fall, though I suspect that the Healer would probably need at least some tweaking after any serious revamp/fix/retooling/rejiggering of the healing spells.

To help make the others more relevant in different situations, I suppose incorporating other antidebuff cures into them shouldn't hurt, though I would mind at what level those antidebuffs are made available, for the sake of not entirely invalidating the "fixes just one negative condition" spells. To make this not sound like gibberish, at 1st level a Cleric has access to remove fear. I'd rather not allow Cure Light Wounds the ability to remove fear as well as heal. Maybe Cure Moderate.

True.

I'd also note that for adding these additional effects, Inflict Spells, which should still function similar to the Cure counter parts, are kinda getting the shaft, unless they get some bonus. That's another reason why I say to fix the Cure spells with the least maintenance possible.

Yeah, the risk of making the Inflict line too good by rolling other spells up into them and making them highly efficient damage dealers is something we can't forget.

I was actually thinking that one could use the Heal Skill to be able to heal based on individual injury, with the spells being for when you absolutely positively must restore hit points immediately, at least until they are strong enough to provide for most of the healing. I've actually also considered adding one's ranks or result in the heal skill to the amount healed, though maybe that might require a feat if the full result can get added, due to how high some skill checks can be made.

Ahh. Ok, I think this is what Thiyr was replying to. I totally missed this paragraph the first two times I read through this post somehow.

I think the primary limiting factor would be the action taken. So a full-round(check result-5?) or multi-round(check result or even something like 1.5x, 2x, or even 3-4x depending upon time?) Heal check would do more than a standard action(say check result - 10?). Maybe stabilization/remove bleed could be moved to swift or move actions along with that.

Though it'd also make the whole long-term care component mostly null without creating some kind of mundane charged item like med-kit with X uses with a cost of Y gp per use or something along those lines. Not necessarily a bad thing though, since those rules aren't really used all that often except at low levels and sometimes(?) in justifying someone surviving falling into a gorge and being incapacitated but surviving.

The most important thing in my book, aside from keeping things both good and balanced, is that the spells not seem out of place too hard. Healing can and should be a thing, but the more extensive a fix is for something so simple, the more I think too much effort is being put into it. And I still hate the idea of a spell healing two targets at equal levels for different amounts. It messes with my fake ocd.

True. X% HP isn't really a good stylistic fit with the rest of the spells. And if you get the spells to scale properly then you wouldn't really need to worry about the x% to keep them somewhat relevant at higher levels.

[Thiyr]

sorry, was typing from phone before. CDH = Channeled Divine Health, a spell I mentioned earlier in the thread, the one which you can spend more actions on to get a larger effect.

Yeah... I probably haven't been weighing that as much as I should've been either. I think part of what makes me leery is also making the Inflict line ranged or only allowing either line of spells to be ranged if they're being used to heal.

Since if we get the cure line up to do relevant amounts of healing then unless it's decoupled from the inflict line, that means that the Inflict line become very good for single-target ranged blasting, and if we make healing superior to blasting in terms of the numbers game, that'd make inflict into super blasting(?). Though maybe some restriction like half the effect when using it to damage as to heal? Though that'd be a bit wonky with the Inflict line since healing undead seems to be an afterthought.

Maybe change the names and fluff of the lines of spells a bit so they both primarily focus on healing Positive or Negative energy based creatures respectively

excellent point. I think "half effect when used offensively", or just plain having it do the original xd8+CL when used offensively works. Even if it gets a range, I don't think that's -too- bad, if its doing the original numbers.

What, you mean like allowing heal checks to heal HP damage? Depending upon how you jiggered that, it'd probably take care of the out of combat healing pretty handily, I suppose, leaving spells to mostly be used in combat scenarios...

Definitely seems like something to consider. Wait... Isn't there already a skill trick or something in 3.5 that allows something similar?

I was more referencing what I-no brought up that you missed (and i missed you missing at first). From what he said, it sounds kinda like how wounds in hackmaster work, where you track each wound separately and each one heals separately, and then using heal checks to take care of individual ones? Its got potential, but I'm not sure. For some reason I almost think having that "static" part of the spell be tied to heal ranks could be nifty as well. It gives the skill some utility, it gives the spell a bit more solid of an oomph, and it still scales if you keep investing. Maybe put a per-spell cap on that.

1d3-1)s or 1d3s would simulate them well enough and be quicker to roll, since d6s are the easiest die type to come across, IIRC. The only issue would be the minor difference between a naked 1d3 and a naked 1d4, though the 1d3-1 avoids that, I think.

Still, I find that it often bogs things down when you have to mess around with what the dice is showing vs what that means. Was playing hackmaster (which i have little experience with, to be fair), and was rolling a fair number of d3's for weapon damage. A wonderful thing to roll when you have exploding dice, as an aside. But I rolled those different than everyone else. i go with the 1-3 is normal, 4-6 subtract 3 (so 4 is 1, 5 is 2, and 6 is 3, respectively). everyone else went with "half number rounded up", so 1 and 2 count as 1, 3 and 4 cound as 2, 5 and 6 count as 3. I kept that consistent, and we were an agreeable group, but it caused confusion when other people looked at my dice. Not saying it's impossible to deal with, just that the more they come up, the more likely it's gonna cause issues between people misunderstanding things.


And because the quote doesn't make much sense out of context: in regards to how healing and damage line up to each other, and not having a good idea on how to address it. While I'd like to see testing on the matter, I wouldn't mind seeing heals-per-round overtaking damage-per-round in instances of same resources expended, if it's gonna take a standard action to do. It comes back to the "you can't overcome most encounters with pure healing" thing. Either you want it to be quick/an add-on and less potent (so it doesn't interfere as much with you ability to fry your enemy), or you want it to be time consuming and Big. If I'm wasting a turn keeping someone alive instead of getting the encounter over, it needs to be a major thing. If a wizard steps up and launches 3 magic missiles at my buddy, doing his average 7.5 damage, spending a turn and a spell to erase that seems reasonable to me. It's retroactive counterspelling of damage spells, in another sense. (interesting note, at CL 6, where that MM would be being cast, a CL 6 CLW would heal 9.5 damage, actually fulfilling that role. That said, i chose magic missile because it's iconic, not because it's the best option for face melting. I've got nothing wrong with there being a handful of above-the-curve damage spells, given that there's a reason to ever -not- use them. Scorching Ray is actually a good example. Fairly efficient damage per CL (outside of that cap) at the CL you get each new ray at. But its fire, it's got SR: Yes, and it needs 3 attack rolls (and, in niche situations, it being a ray can be a detriment as well). There are situations its not the ideal choice. The better the blast is, the more severe and consistent the reasons not to use it need to be.

[Pex]

That's my point though. Healing is a delay tactic. If, for some reason, your entire party was nothing but Life Oracles and you did nothing but heal, you would lose. To use MtG parlance, it's not a win condition. No matter how many actions of the enemy you waste, if you don't have some means of offense, you will lose. It's an extreme example that will never occur in actual play most likely*, but it serves to demonstrate why healing needs to be more efficient than damage if it wants to compete for the same resources, namely that its purpose is to extend the longevity of your -ability- to do damage.

(Also, I don't know PF terribly well, so i have no idea how well oracles work overall, but my point is class-independent)


*I suppose you could have players who really, really want to try and do the "Team Cleric" wait for all your enemies to get tired of you and leave strategy, but that...is pretty unlikely to occur consistently.

Of course someone has to take offensive action. If you never hurt the enemy eventually your healing resources will run out and then you die. However, it is sound strategy if one member of the party uses healing in combat. It's not ubersupreme the best and doesn't have to be. It works well enough.

The problem with healing in combat is one of attitude, not effectiveness. Some players just find the concept boring. They believe wrongly that is all you do. They don't think that a healing cleric will also cast buff and attack spells. Others have the attitude that healing doesn't contribute to the combat. A warrior they see getting in the bad guy's face and hacking him to bits. The warrior takes hits himself and is near 0 hit points. The cleric heals him so that the next hit or two won't drop him. The warrior player dismisses that action even though he gets hit, doesn't drop to 0 because of that healing, and then wails on the bad guy dropping him. He doesn't appreciate the big help the cleric just gave him.

Then there's the spellcaster player who wonders why didn't the cleric just attack the bad guy himself with a spell. He could have. That's also an effective tactic. I'm not denying that. However, just because he could have doesn't mean it would have worked. The bad guy could make his saving throw. The cleric could fail to get through spell resistance. The cleric might not have an appropriate spell. The cleric could have been buffed himself and did his own hacking. Also an effective strategy; I don't deny that. However, the cleric might miss on that to hit roll. Even if he does hit the damage might not be enough to drop the bad guy. The warrior PC could have also missed of course. There is no guarantee and not supposed to be. Healing the warrior PC and let him get the kill is just another tactic.

[caimbuel]

As a long time DM, I see where the need for this is. My wife loves to heal, does not matter what game. If you cant get a decent healer in that game she will move on. I work with her tho, I feel blessed to have a gamer wife

My biggest issue with that changes anyone has suggested is that you really step on the toes of some class's like the vitalist, life oracle, and healer. I personally think a vitalist heals fine and can turn combat into AP+4 as baseline if everyone is optimized. But to heal and buff Vitalists give up a lot, 1/2 bab, very limited spells known, etc. Why buff up an arguably tier 1 cleric to be better. YMMV

EDIT: spelling

[Psyren]

As a long time DM, I see where the need for this is. My wife loves to heal, does not matter what game. If you cant get a decent healer in that game she will move on.

Exactly - some folks just plain enjoy it. And you know what? Maybe after a few sessions playing healbot, they throw out a bless or prayer. and from there it's a fairly short hop to saying well why don't I try this flamestrike thing out, and before you know it they are prepping a holy word or two while they check the Bestiary for helpful summons. In short, they see they have this big list, realize they automatically know the whole thing and decide to take a few moments reading it. It's fine, you know?

My biggest issue with that changes anyone has suggested is that you really step on the toes of some class's like the vitalist, life oracle, and healer. I personally think a vitalist heals fine and can turn combat into AP+4 as baseline if everyone is optimized. But to heal and buff Vitalists give up a lot, 1/2 bab, very limited spells known, etc. Why buff up an arguably tier 1 cleric to be better. YMMV

I would require a class that wants the faster healing to take their more healing-focused archetype or option. Clerics would need True Healer, Oracles would need Life Mystery, Witches would need Hedge Witch, etc. That way you narrow the buffs down to the folks who do want to play healbot first and maybe do other things second.

[Coidzor]

As a long time DM, I see where the need for this is. My wife loves to heal, does not matter what game. If you cant get a decent healer in that game she will move on. I work with her tho, I feel blessed to have a gamer wife

My biggest issue with that changes anyone has suggested is that you really step on the toes of some class's like the vitalist, life oracle, and healer. I personally think a vitalist heals fine and can turn combat into AP+4 as baseline if everyone is optimized. But to heal and buff Vitalists give up a lot, 1/2 bab, very limited spells known, etc. Why buff up an arguably tier 1 cleric to be better. YMMV

Aside from the Vitalist, due to being Psionic and not interacting with healing spells in the first place to my knowledge, most of the proposed changes would benefit the life oracle and (3.5)healer as much or more than the cleric or druid (and would also benefit bards, paladins, and rangers, IIRC). (Can't really find a PF Healer, though I haven't looked particularly hard) The main toe-stepping area I see is the OP's proposal of making them swift actions across the board, though I think there's probably a way to make a less-potent-than-standard-action-healing swift-action spell without toe-stepping, or at least, without serious toe-stepping.

The cleric isn't T1 because of its healing, though spontaneously converting to the cure line of spells as it becomes needed is nice, and, yes, becomes nicer if those spells are made nicer. Giving them the option to more relevantly heal means that if they do that, then they're that much less likely to do anything game-breaking that round.

Especially if swift action heals are kept as supplementary to standard action healing rather than becoming the new base action for healing spells.

Buffing the numbers on healing spells to parity shouldn't really be stealing the Vitalist's thunder though. Buffing the numbers on healing spells to the superior position though, yeah, you don't want to do that while Vitalists are on the table unless you're also going to buff their numbers to some extent as well, though it sounds like their combination buff-healing shouldn't need too much of a nudge. I'm not very familiar with Vitalist, so I might be missing something there.

Similarly, Life Oracles' have several tricks which should require relatively little tweaking to continue to be relevant(especially their ability to do standard action healing as a swift-action if they so choose. provided that standard action healing isn't phased out...) if we're just talking about buffing the base numbers on healing spells. If the numbers are buffed to parity, then the life oracle's buff to numbers should push it into superiority; if the numbers are buffed to superiority, then the life oracle's buff to numbers potentially becomes less relevant, yes, or it means that instead of mostly healing they're fully healing.

Maybe this creates a need to tweak them to give more temp HP to the party (or give it for longer) to compensate for having their thunder stolen. There are several of the mysteries which do get made irrelevant or would need updating as a result of any serious change, and that's something to keep in mind, though reviewing the archetype... I'm not really seeing anything good enough to justify the base system continuing, either.

Could definitely help inform changes to the base healing spells though, to keep it in mind.

As for the healer class/archetype in PF... I'm not familiar with that one in the slightest, so I can't really comment. If you're talking about the merciful healer cleric archetype, then the only thing that'd really interact would be if we made the cure line ranged by default, where it'd still gain more than it lost, since even without provoking AoOs to heal, if one would've been doing so without it, one might not be positioned as well as one would like. If you're talking about porting in the 3.5 Healer into PF, then the Healer should love the base healing spells being buffed.

[caimbuel]

Vitalist is here. I am a firm believer in if its your game run it how you want. You will know if it works by your players coming back week after week. That said smaller changes may work better, Healing does scale pretty bad compared to damage, tho that is a hard coded mechanic that offence scales well and def is iffy at best. One house rule I did allow in the past was empower was +100% for heals and only +50% for damage. Hopefully some re-balance is coming in the new Unchained and Unplugged.

As always YMMV

[Dalebert]

I have to admit that on a purely conceptual basis, it makes sense for healing to not keep up with damage. Destruction should be easier than creation. Think about the effort put into building an tower versus slinging a boulder at the base and knocking it over into pieces. That doesn't mean it makes sense in game mechanics.

[Psyren]

I have to admit that on a purely conceptual basis, it makes sense for healing to not keep up with damage. Destruction should be easier than creation. Think about the effort put into building an tower versus slinging a boulder at the base and knocking it over into pieces. That doesn't mean it makes sense in game mechanics.

For turn-based games like D&D and Pokemon that does make sense. For real-time games it's often the opposite, because healing has to be strong enough to compensate for slowness in the player's reflexes. So I suppose it depends somewhat on the medium.

[Pex]

I have to admit that on a purely conceptual basis, it makes sense for healing to not keep up with damage. Destruction should be easier than creation. Think about the effort put into building an tower versus slinging a boulder at the base and knocking it over into pieces. That doesn't mean it makes sense in game mechanics.

It's not necessary for the amount of healing to equal or exceed the amount of damage. When I choose to heal a party member in combat my goal is not to get him to full. My goal is to keep him from reaching 0 hit points for as long as possible so he can still do stuff. I don't heal him right after his first amount of damage taken, with the exception of such an overwhelming amount he is very, very close to 0 which happens once in a while. I do other stuff, but I don't always need to nor always capable of getting the kill when another party could do it just as well or better at that particular moment if only he had at least 1 hit point.

[icefractal]

I have to admit that on a purely conceptual basis, it makes sense for healing to not keep up with damage. Destruction should be easier than creation. Think about the effort put into building an tower versus slinging a boulder at the base and knocking it over into pieces. That doesn't mean it makes sense in game mechanics.

Counterpoint - supposedly, HP don't directly represent "meat points" - not every loss of HP means a direct injury, it could mean exhaustion, running out of luck, bruising, etc. So from the perspective that a warrior with 150 hp who's taken 100 damage might not have even been injured more than a few superficial cuts yet, why would it take such a massive spells to recover his energy and confidence? Especially when earlier in his travels, he could be brought back from death's door by merely a CMW?

Going along that line of thought, the Cure serious should really restore a percentage of HP, not a fixed number. Which might be a good way to do it.

[Slipperychicken]

Counterpoint - supposedly, HP don't directly represent "meat points" - not every loss of HP means a direct injury, it could mean exhaustion, running out of luck, bruising, etc. So from the perspective that a warrior with 150 hp who's taken 100 damage might not have even been injured more than a few superficial cuts yet, why would it take such a massive spells to recover his energy and confidence? Especially when earlier in his travels, he could be brought back from death's door by merely a CMW?

Going along that line of thought, the Cure serious should really restore a percentage of HP, not a fixed number. Which might be a good way to do it.

I sometimes want to subscribe to this in 3.5, but the terminology nixes it. When I "hit" my "target" and "deal lethal damage" with my "+1 Flesh-Grinding Shortsword", that doesn't mean I'm making the guy tired, or depleting his luck-meter, or giving him a slight abrasion or a bruise. It means that I rammed a 2ft long piece of metal into his reeking guts, spilling his blood and viscera all over my gauntlets and tabard, and the blade is now twisting itself around in the wound and causing enough needless suffering to give human rights groups an aneurysm. The target having loads of hit points just means that he's badass enough to remain conscious and fighting despite such grievous injuries which would surely kill lesser men.

Also, I think the injury thing more of an issue inherent with nonsensical hp-scaling and a lack of wound-effects, than it is with how healing spells work.

[Coidzor]

I sometimes want to subscribe to this in 3.5, but the terminology nixes it. When I "hit" my "target" and "deal lethal damage" with my "+1 Flesh-Grinding Shortsword", that doesn't mean I'm making the guy tired, or depleting his luck-meter, or giving him a slight abrasion or a bruise. It means that I rammed a 2ft long piece of metal into his reeking guts, spilling his blood and viscera all over my gauntlets and tabard, and the blade is now twisting itself around in the wound and causing enough needless suffering to give human rights groups an aneurysm. The target having loads of hit points just means that he's badass enough to remain conscious and fighting despite such grievous injuries which would surely kill lesser men.

Also, I think the injury thing more of an issue inherent with nonsensical hp-scaling and a lack of wound-effects, than it is with how healing spells work.

Err... Isn't the problem that the rules are all over the place with both being used so that HP is both representing how many swords one can fit into one's face before dying and also something more ephemeral depending upon type of healing and damage source?

[prufock]

I'd say it's game breaking.

In what way? It's still using up daily resources, so it's not like a character will be shooting off cure x wounds every round. Classes like Crusader in 3.5 heal and do damage with the same action. Other games have healing surge/second wind that allow you to heal as a swift action, etc etc. It's going to change the game, it certainly shouldn't break the game.

Why do they need to be relevant? Can someone answer that question first? Because I don't think i've ever heard an answer.

1. Irrelevancy is bad game design. Seriously. Who wants a character that has a bunch of abilities, skills, spells, feats, or powers that are irrelevant? If an ability is irrelevant, it may as well not exist in the game.
2. It's fun. Healing can be fun, yes, and it's a lot more fun when you aren't fighting a completely losing battle. It shouldn't be so strong that winning is guaranteed, nor should it be so weak that it's a wasted action; it should be balanced such that it contributes to winning the encounter.

*

With the ideas people are tossing around, has anyone considered removing the random part of the equation? Instead of 1d8+your level, how about a flat number (plus your level, if desired)? Or model it after Heal, and just heal a number per CL. Heal restores 10/level, so what if we had CSW at 8/level, CModW at 6/level, and CLW at 4/level, and CMinW at 2/level?

[Svata]

When I "hit" my "target" and "deal lethal damage" with my "+1 Flesh-Grinding Shortsword", that doesn't mean I'm making the guy tired, or depleting his luck-meter, or giving him a slight abrasion or a bruise. It means that I rammed a 2ft long piece of metal into his reeking guts, spilling his blood and viscera all over my gauntlets and tabard, and the blade is now twisting itself around in the wound and causing enough needless suffering to give human rights groups an aneurysm.

Quite frankly, that was beautiful.

[prufock]

When I "hit" my "target" and "deal lethal damage" with my "+1 Flesh-Grinding Shortsword", that doesn't mean I'm making the guy tired, or depleting his luck-meter, or giving him a slight abrasion or a bruise. It means that I rammed a 2ft long piece of metal into his reeking guts, spilling his blood and viscera all over my gauntlets and tabard, and the blade is now twisting itself around in the wound and causing enough needless suffering to give human rights groups an aneurysm. The target having loads of hit points just means that he's badass enough to remain conscious and fighting despite such grievous injuries which would surely kill lesser men.

Why, though? I would consider this a critical hit, and the description can be based on the amount of damage dealt. Not every "hit" is shoving your blade through his guts. Some hits just knock the wind out of your opponent, or rattle his brain, or slice through a muscle, or...

[Dalebert]

Why, though? I would consider this a critical hit, and the description can be based on the amount of damage dealt. Not every "hit" is shoving your blade through his guts. Some hits just knock the wind out of your opponent, or rattle his brain, or slice through a muscle, or...

Come on. Just humor him. You know the old saying--"Aim for the stars and you might just hit the moon."

[Andreaz]

It's not necessary for the amount of healing to equal or exceed the amount of damage. When I choose to heal a party member in combat my goal is not to get him to full. My goal is to keep him from reaching 0 hit points for as long as possible so he can still do stuff. I don't heal him right after his first amount of damage taken, with the exception of such an overwhelming amount he is very, very close to 0 which happens once in a while. I do other stuff, but I don't always need to nor always capable of getting the kill when another party could do it just as well or better at that particular moment if only he had at least 1 hit point.

That's the thing, though... If that healing doesn't buy your friend more than one turn, odds are you'd be better off doing that offensive action on your own. Same number of offensive actions taken, same or lesser spell toll, same conclusion to the fight.

Since your first reply to "healing doesn't win combats" felt rather brash, i'll try to clarify what I believe (and believe agrees with what the bulbasaur pal there said): Healing alone does nothing. Watching you two trade words it became clear both of you were doing the exact same thing: fighting the fight while using big heals whenever big heals were called for. Both of you rejected the ideas of "never healing" and "only healing" as suicidal approaches, even.

And that's fine! Big heals are unquestionably useful, necessary at times!
But the big heals don't begin until you get into the later mass heals, Heal and their ilk. And even then we can still come up with other actions that are on a similar effectiveness.
So, uh, please don't fight?

---

Back to the OP: Making all Cure spells(but not magical completion Cure items) swift won't break the game. It'll help a good deal since one can now both swing a hammer and heal the adjacent pal, but... you're still burning a spell slot on Cure. And we only have so many spells to burn per day! A prolonged fight(or series of fights) will barely change by making swift Cures.

If you really want to viabilize the little heals like Devoted Spirit does (which I thoroughly approve), make a class feat(ure) that allows you to burn healing resources with extreme efficiency as a rider effect. Maybe something like "at the beginning of the fight choose one single-target Cure spell of [level. second highest? 1 spell level per four caster levels?] you can cast. Every time you [trigger action], that spell is cast on nearby allies (maybe at half potency). You only spend one such cure spell no matter how many times this happens."

Trigger actions may be things like a full attack, or casting a buff on your allies. (by default you'd only get one)

So a more fighty cleric would heal nearby allies (5 feet / 4 levels?) every time he wails on the enemy.
A frailer cleric would heal all allies buffed when he casts a buff.
A blasty cleric could heal allies proportionally to whoever his last flame strike scorched.

And of course a wounding counterpart could always be used! Do the same for Inflict!

[Dalebert]

Back to the OP: Making all Cure spells(but not magical completion Cure items) swift won't break the game. It'll help a good deal since one can now both swing a hammer and heal the adjacent pal, but... you're still burning a spell slot on Cure. And we only have so many spells to burn per day! A prolonged fight(or series of fights) will barely change by making swift Cures.

Agreed. I told the DM last night that I'm very unlikely to actually prepare cures spells even with the house rule. If I had a cleric's substitute as needed ability I might use them occasionally.

[Coidzor]

Agreed. I told the DM last night that I'm very unlikely to actually prepare cures spells even with the house rule. If I had a cleric's substitute as needed ability I might use them occasionally.

It's probably not too unbalancing if it was extended to all prepared casters that can cast the cure line of spells. I mean, in Pathfinder that's, what Druids, Rangers, and Paladins that would gain the ability to trade out a spell for a Cure/healing spell? In 3.5 it's a great boon to the Healer base class which had that component overlooked, and the most powerful class added to the mix of those that would benefit would be Ur-Priest.

Some prereqs *might* need rejiggering as a result, but there's nothing too earth-shattering that requires being able to spontaneously cast or convert spells into cure spells AFAIK.

I suppose there'd be a potential thematic issue with negative energy channeling clerics getting access to both spontaneous inflict and cure and then having to either live with that or give all clerics spontaneous inflict and cure or stick all clerics with spontaneous cure only or spontaneous cure and inflict but only for healing purposes.

[Psyren]

I sometimes want to subscribe to this in 3.5, but the terminology nixes it. When I "hit" my "target" and "deal lethal damage" with my "+1 Flesh-Grinding Shortsword", that doesn't mean I'm making the guy tired, or depleting his luck-meter, or giving him a slight abrasion or a bruise. It means that I rammed a 2ft long piece of metal into his reeking guts, spilling his blood and viscera all over my gauntlets and tabard, and the blade is now twisting itself around in the wound and causing enough needless suffering to give human rights groups an aneurysm. The target having loads of hit points just means that he's badass enough to remain conscious and fighting despite such grievous injuries which would surely kill lesser men.

Also, I think the injury thing more of an issue inherent with nonsensical hp-scaling and a lack of wound-effects, than it is with how healing spells work.

This was hilarious, kudos

[Dalebert]

It's probably not too unbalancing if it was extended to all prepared casters that can cast the cure line of spells. I mean, in Pathfinder that's, what Druids, Rangers, and Paladins that would gain the ability to trade out a spell for a Cure/healing spell?

My knee-jerk response to that was "Wait, that would make clerics less powerful, relatively speaking" but then I was like "Oh, that's a GOOD thing." Clerics are fracking obnoxious. They know all their spells and never have to worry about losing them due to a lost or destroyed spellbook or familiar. They get more spells per day than a wizard through domains (which adds yet more to spells known). They can wear armor and cast spells and get good hit points. They get spontaneous cures and energy channeling which allow AoE healing or controlling AND healing undead (even better, IMHO). Anything that knocks them down a peg is okay in my book.

Of course, one of my favorite characters of all time was a (cloistered) cleric, so he was kind of like a wizard who could wear armor AND had lots of skill points.

[Psyren]

It's probably not too unbalancing if it was extended to all prepared casters that can cast the cure line of spells. I mean, in Pathfinder that's, what Druids, Rangers, and Paladins that would gain the ability to trade out a spell for a Cure/healing spell?

You forgot Witches and Alchemists - the former can also spontaneously cure using the Hedge Witch archetype. The latter can spontaneously cure in reverse with the Chirurgeon archetype - namely, they can prepare all their extracts as cures, but swap them out for other extracts throughout the day as needed.