Cure Wounds as a Bonus Action

[furby076]

So Cure Wounds (only that spell, not other healing spells) is pretty weak at times. Many here suggest damage mitigation > damage healing. What about making Cure wounds (irrespective of spell slot) into a bonus action? This allows the healer to do some other action (attack) and cure.

When I played my paladin, and needed healing, the quesion was do I attack or heal. My attacks do far more damage, and healing was weak. If I could have used cure wounds as a bonus action, I would have done it. Also, it would make me consider "do i smite or do I cure"...as of now, spells slots almost always get used for smite.

What do you folks think of this? It's beneficial to the entire party (also npcs).

[PhantomSoul]

It sounds like you want Healing Word, which also allows more Range (but for marginally less healing) :)

[Dork_Forge]

IMO it would be too much, Cure Wounds is meant to be a Tier 1 go to healing spell and it fills that role adequately. It should be a back up for Paladins after Lay on Hands (which scales very nicely) really.

I've never really understood what people want out of Cure Wounds, you get the spell at first level as a full caster, at that time characters only have max hit die+Con for the most part. The majority of classes are D8 and lower, Cure Wounds has the potential to max out their health from 0 and even at level 2 and 3 heals a substantial chunk of hp. As you level up damage thrown at you increases and so does your health, if people want to still use Cure Wounds then it should be upcast. I just think people expect a spell you get at 1st level to stretch too far when in reality it's a good low level heal.

[Sindal]

Personally, if it needed to be buffed, I'd just have it a very short range (30ft, which is half of healing word) instead of touch. Possibly make it require a Materials to cast if it necessary for balance.

Let healing word be the 'bandaid thrown at long ranges with ease' it was meant to be for offhealers while main healers focus it as their main "combat fixer". Clerics, for instance, got spells to use their bonus action on anyway. Would much rather cure wounds and use my already out spirit weapon in tandem.

Das just me. Though atleast that's something neat divine soul sorcs can get away with. Using a stronger heal at range. But I'd say it does what it's supposed to do pretty well as it is.

Getting rid of the enemy is almost always more important anyway.

[Eldariel]

IMO it would be too much, Cure Wounds is meant to be a Tier 1 go to healing spell and it fills that role adequately. It should be a back up for Paladins after Lay on Hands (which scales very nicely) really.

I've never really understood what people want out of Cure Wounds, you get the spell at first level as a full caster, at that time characters only have max hit die+Con for the most part. The majority of classes are D8 and lower, Cure Wounds has the potential to max out their health from 0 and even at level 2 and 3 heals a substantial chunk of hp. As you level up damage thrown at you increases and so does your health, if people want to still use Cure Wounds then it should be upcast. I just think people expect a spell you get at 1st level to stretch too far when in reality it's a good low level heal.

It's rarely worth the action cost in combat though, which is inconvenient. With the way zero/negative HP works (doesn't work), it's generally more important to just get somebody back on their feet than to heal for N amount. Ultimately, it falls behind damage effects in multiple ways (can't match AOE, can't get iteratives, etc.) and is so weak in comparison to other healing effects that it's rarely worth bothering with. A spell slot and an action for maybe restoring somebody for maybe enough HP to fill them out/undo an attack is just a few maybes too many. 1d12+3 is a decent amount on surface but with such huge variety, it'll often do too little or too much compared to what you need, wasting some of the effect and making casting it never an easy choice unless the target is missing at least 15 HP (it's very inconvenient to fill somebody out with due to the randomness). And again, in combat you're trading an action and a slot for just an action from the enemy. Especially considering that enemies essentially have disposable actions and enemies' resource consumption is often quite irrelevant, that's a huge trade down. Rather you'd want to use a slot to fully disable an enemy, have a decent shot at disabling multiple enemies, or actually taking an enemy down.

If it healed for a fixed amount, it would be much better - wasted healing is generally far more problematic than wasted damage and far more easy to run into; such healing is very slot inefficient. Also, the fact that while the dice scale, the bonus doesn't makes the upcast version really weak and even more unreliable unless you're missing a lot of HP (in which case a low roll can indirectly just kill the target, especially compared to taking an action that disables the threatening enemy instead). You wouldn't use a 1st level slot for what amounts to 1st tier Toll the Dead with Potent Cantrip either. That's decidedly a Cantrip-level effect.

[Man_Over_Game]

Cure Wounds should have a niche against Healing Word, and vice-versa. Moving Cure Wounds into being a Bonus Action just makes them different in terms of range and power, which is really boring and useless. Good content is when a player has to choose between two options and feel like he's losing one, rather than feeling like they just take whatever fits in their jigsaw-puzzle resource economy.

You could make Cure Wounds:
Give the target Temporary Hitpoints equal to the HP healed that last until the start of your next turn.
Give the target THP for each HP you heal past their maximum HP.
Heal 5 points less when healed at range.
Deal damage to Undead.
Heal the total amount divided between all allies you can touch (including yourself).
Heal an additional 5 HP if the target is less than 50% HP.

[Yakk]

Cure wounds does have a niche over healing word.

It is when you don't have a better use for your action.

Maybe the enemy is invisible or hiding in darkness or just out of line of sight, or you are between fights. Then it gives a better return for the same cost.

---

If you wanted to make cure wounds a strong spell and distinct from healing word, you could make it grow triangularly.

Cure Wounds
The target creature heals 1d8 pus casting ability HP. At the start of the creatures's next turn, it heals another 1d8 HP, unless it was reduced to 0 HP since this spell was cast.

At higher levels: The initial heaing increases 1d8 for each higher level slot, and the spell duration increases by 1 turn for every higher level slot.

Now about half of the healing applies in a long tail. It heals a total of 2d8*Spell level + stat, which is plenty, but if you spam it you don't get nearly that much healing.

[MaxWilson]

So Cure Wounds (only that spell, not other healing spells) is pretty weak at times. Many here suggest damage mitigation > damage healing. What about making Cure wounds (irrespective of spell slot) into a bonus action? This allows the healer to do some other action (attack) and cure.

When I played my paladin, and needed healing, the quesion was do I attack or heal. My attacks do far more damage, and healing was weak. If I could have used cure wounds as a bonus action, I would have done it. Also, it would make me consider "do i smite or do I cure"...as of now, spells slots almost always get used for smite.

What do you folks think of this? It's beneficial to the entire party (also npcs).

Well, it's very nice for Paladins and Rangers, who have Cure Wounds but not Healing Word. It will make pop-up healing even more prevalent. If pop-up healing is something that happens at your table, it might be a little bit unbalancing (unneeded buff to an already-strong Paladin chassis). If pop-up healing is something that doesn't happen at your table, it probably won't break anything: you'll just do healing during combat that you otherwise would have done after combat.

It won't change anyone's opinion on the relative value of damage mitigation vs. damage healing: under vanilla PHB rules, pop-up healing is already the only time most people are willing to heal during combat.

Overall I recommend against this change. It seems gratuitous, motivated purely by the desire to buff paladins.

[stoutstien]

A change for cure wounds I've used is to allow the recipient of the spell to spend 1 hit die to add to the total heal. Upcasting allowing more HD.

It gives a spell a little more oomph but at a slight cost of short rest healing.

*Originally this was a class feature I made for clerics at lv 3 but ended up just adding it to the spell.*

[Amechra]

It's a decent enough spell for a Celestial Warlock - it turns leftover spell slots into healing whenever you take a short rest.

In general, though, I'd say that Cure Wounds is meant for out-of-combat healing that can still be used in-combat if necessary.

[Slipperychicken]

Healing word is for combat. Cure wounds is for outside combat. That's the niche. Kind of weak with an advantage of just 2hp average difference, but it can matter at level 1.

Damage healing is a great approach if you do it properly, and can be wasteful otherwise. That means knowing all the resources you have and rationing them well (maximize use of short-rest resources, minimize use of long-rest ones, use abilities to their full efficiency). IMO damage prevention is a meme left over from 3rd edition when crowd-control was strong enough to just shut down fights before the enemy fired a shot. And obviously when you have just one fight per long rest then it really doesn't matter because you'll full heal before the next fight no matter what.

[GreyBlack]

So Cure Wounds (only that spell, not other healing spells) is pretty weak at times. Many here suggest damage mitigation > damage healing. What about making Cure wounds (irrespective of spell slot) into a bonus action? This allows the healer to do some other action (attack) and cure.

When I played my paladin, and needed healing, the quesion was do I attack or heal. My attacks do far more damage, and healing was weak. If I could have used cure wounds as a bonus action, I would have done it. Also, it would make me consider "do i smite or do I cure"...as of now, spells slots almost always get used for smite.

What do you folks think of this? It's beneficial to the entire party (also npcs).

Other people have already talked about how there is already a spell for this. For me, as a cleric main, making cure wounds would make me even less likely to heal than I already am, given how starved for bonus actions the Cleric already is.

[Glorthindel]

Ultimately it just needs to heal more damage.

Spell damage has creeped up at low levels in 5th ed, and healing hasn't matched it. For 1st level damage spells, Guiding bolt does 4d6, Dissonant Whispers does 3d6 and extra effects, and even Inflict Wounds (which in previous editions was a straight mirror of Cure Wounds, healing undead and damaging living) has increased to 3d10.

In return, Cure Wounds has stayed at the same amount of healing, and lost its ability to damage undead. Why shouldn't it get the buff its negative-energy brother received?

3d10 sounds crazy for a 1st level healing spell, but that is only an average of 16-17 hp, which is entirely reasonable for a 1st level barbarian to have. That same Barbarian in 2nd ed would have been somewhere in the region of 7-8 hp (no max hp 1st level, and less bonus from Constitution).

So first level characters are running around with double the hp (or more in some cases, Your level 1 Wizard maybe 3 or 4 times what an AD&D Wizard had), and low level spell damage by 3 times the amount, yet healing has remained at the same amount. No wonder healing is becoming action inefficient - it is!

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think it is dice base for the grave cleric.

I saw it power when the cleric forced my 1 hp witch (Sorcelock) with a level 4 armour of agathys to stab herself so he will heal her(that happened after the combat and it took some time as I rolled 7 on str and forget that dagger have finess).
From 1 to full with a high level slot is useful as he use a full dice instead of rolling.

[Sindal]

I'm more on board with increasing itd healing. Rather make it worth the use of an action then reduce its action. Maybe moving the dice up to a d12?

[stoutstien]

I think it is dice base for the grave cleric.

I saw it power when the cleric forced my 1 hp witch (Sorcelock) with a level 4 armour of agathys to stab herself so he will heal her(that happened after the combat and it took some time as I rolled 7 on str and forget that dagger have finess).
From 1 to full with a high level slot is useful as he use a full dice instead of rolling.

Out of combat healing is isn't really the issue. Your party could pull off the same effect with healing spirit, aura of vitality, the heal spell(I hope he didn't cast cure wounds with a lv 6+ slot), or about a dozen other ways.

Your experience points out that grave clerics are good slot economic healers but that has little to do with cure wounds.

[LudicSavant]

Ultimately it just needs to heal more damage.

Spell damage has creeped up at low levels in 5th ed, and healing hasn't matched it. For 1st level damage spells, Guiding bolt does 4d6, Dissonant Whispers does 3d6 and extra effects, and even Inflict Wounds (which in previous editions was a straight mirror of Cure Wounds, healing undead and damaging living) has increased to 3d10.

In return, Cure Wounds has stayed at the same amount of healing, and lost its ability to damage undead. Why shouldn't it get the buff its negative-energy brother received?

3d10 sounds crazy for a 1st level healing spell, but that is only an average of 16-17 hp, which is entirely reasonable for a 1st level barbarian to have. That same Barbarian in 2nd ed would have been somewhere in the region of 7-8 hp (no max hp 1st level, and less bonus from Constitution).

So first level characters are running around with double the hp (or more in some cases, Your level 1 Wizard maybe 3 or 4 times what an AD&D Wizard had), and low level spell damage by 3 times the amount, yet healing has remained at the same amount. No wonder healing is becoming action inefficient - it is!

If you want to adjust the numbers, don't forget that Inflict Wounds can miss, and Cure Wounds can't.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Out of combat healing is isn't really the issue. Your party could pull off the same effect with healing spirit, aura of vitality, the heal spell(I hope he didn't cast cure wounds with a lv 6+ slot), or about a dozen other ways.

Your experience points out that grave clerics are good slot economic healers but that has little to do with cure wounds.

It do work the same in combat.
I found out that with hit dice healing there is almost no need for out of combat healing.
In my example we were with a time limit and had a fight a minute (in game minutes) later.
From 0 to 35 in an action is great(4 level slot, the grave get full dice 4*8+3 was his heal).
It also happened in combat one time.

I say that the idea to change in to scale by static value can hurt the grave cleric place in the game.

I want to note that most of the time healing 1 health is better as the damage you take in a turn only getting bigger as you level up and the heal value can go against the damage value of the enemies.
(At some levels 1 hp is the same as 20 as it will be 1 attack to go down either way).

Healing isn't a real thing is 5e.

I think you need to rewrite the system to make healing work without hurting anyone.

[stoutstien]

It do work the same in combat.
I found out that with hit dice healing there is almost no need for out of combat healing.
In my example we were with a time limit and had a fight a minute (in game minutes) later.
From 0 to 35 in an action is great(4 level slot, the grave get full dice 4*8+3 was his heal).
It also happened in combat one time.

I say that the idea to change in to scale by static value can hurt the grave cleric place in the game.

I want to note that most of the time healing 1 health is better as the damage you take in a turn only getting bigger as you level up and the heal value can go against the damage value of the enemies.
(At some levels 1 hp is the same as 20 as it will be 1 attack to go down either way).

Healing isn't a real thing is 5e.

I think you need to rewrite the system to make healing work without hurting anyone.

I have found in 5e PCs in general are very good at dealing and taking large chunks of damage but struggle with smaller but more frequent ones. If the party is taking one attack a round that deals say 40-50% of their max HP they can easily counter it verses the party dealing with an attack every turn that deals 10%.
Just an observation that I've been mulling over to add a little more tension into encounters.

[BoxANT]

Cure Wounds:

can heal via familiar.

does 2hp more *per spell slot level* (than HW)

there are times when you want to heal but still use your bonus action (ie. bonus action spell effects)


but other than that, yeah, Healing Word is superior. Especially when you consider thst HW does not have material or somatic components.

[furby076]

thanks all for tips and thoughts. i'll chat with dm and see what he thinks. i think 5e combat healing is a bit under whelming. i dont need a 1st level cure wounds to act like a heal spell, but cure wounds (even when up cast) doesn't compete with damage in a meaningful way. its good to bring someone up from 0 or out of combat.

[Arkhios]

A little late to the party, but Sorcerer multiclass and quicken metamagic can do wonders to your healing capabilities. Especially Celestial Origin.

[djreynolds]

For a DM it forces a choice.

How important is healing your teammate at this moment?

I might allow a cleric when casting wounds as touch spell with action he/she could maybe ignore AoO or they could dash as bonus action.

Something more thematic?