Crit poison and cure spell under powered - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Mr.Denver Jun 09, 2015 12:25:04	Dear fellow DMs Yesterday I made two rulings and I would like to hear your opinion (and/or rules clarifications). First of: Does/would you double the poison damage dealt by an assassins critical? I didn’t yesterday, as it would give a massive damage of 23d6+3 (14 of these being halved by successful saving throw). Second: Cure Wounds cast at higher levels seems underpowered, so yesterday I ruled it being 1d8+bouns times spell slot (that is third level slot 3x(1d8+bonus). Yours etc. Jeep Denver
#2 iserith Jun 09, 2015 12:33:17	1. I would double all damage dice involved in the attack. Basic Rules, page 75: "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal." 2. I don't think it's underpowered, but neither do I think your ruling creates any problems with the game experience.
#3 Tempest_Stormwind Jun 09, 2015 13:42:00	I'm with Iserith on both points. Recall that upcast spells are supposed to be a bit weaker than native spells of a given level. Also, in a game where offense can be a defense in itself (since a dead foe doesn't hurt you), players are incentivised to heal at the last possible moment. Healing that's too strong means those last ditch heals will show up rarely; keeping them slightly weak means you're incentivised to use them slightly sooner, or switching strategy (against an enemy that also heals) to overwhelm them instead of outlasting them. EDIT: Now that I'm at a full keyboard, I can elaborate a bit. First, Cure Wounds' advantage is that it can be cast as a 1st level spell with pretty decent healing efficiency. The lack of multiplying the casting modifier on it means that upcast versions are less efficient by nature (and it's also consistent with multiplying in other places, like critical hits). Compare to higher-level healing spells, like Prayer of Healing (2nd level, 2d8+Wis to each of six separate targets), Aura of Vitality (3rd, 20d6 in 2d6/round bursts - however, this is a paladin exclusive spell) or Heal (6th, 70 plus some other goodies) - note that all of these can be done at range, while Cure Wounds has a range of Touch. The advantage to Cure Wounds is, again, that it can be cast out of a cheaper slot, or that it eats up only one spell known / prepared; the disadvantage is that it will be weaker when upcast relative to the existing spells of those levels. I don't think multiplying the ability modifier actually breaks this, mind you. I'm just explaining some of the reasoning. Regarding the second point. Let's say you're a character with a healing spell prepped (a cleric, say), and your team's warrior has 100 hit points and is fighting a monster that deals 30 damage to the fighter every round (let's ignore crits on all sides here). The fighter can survive three hits before he reaches a point where the next hit will kill him; since dead foes don't fight back, he's at his best if he fights all-out until that point, and you're at your best if you concentrate on offense until the fighter reaches that point - regardless of how strong the healing spell is, it's in your best interests to fight offensively until you reach the point where the fighter will be KOed next round. If your healing spell heals 70 HP (i.e. Heal), you hit that fourth round, pop off the spell, and keep fighting for another two rounds without adjusting your tactics. The heals are few and far between, and basically just serve as a way of flipping over the hourglass on an offensive combat. This style of gameplay is sometimes derided as "padded sumo", though it appeals to some (particularly if the gameplay's dynamic enough to keep it interesting, instead of just standing there wailing on your foe). 5e decided to make this style of gameplay unsustainable, since it depends on a 6th level slot (too high-level to use more than once or twice a day - enough to be a dramatic turnaround when it happens, rather than another flip of the hourglass.) If your healing spell heals 20 HP (which a 4th level Cure Wounds would do, more or less), you actually are not in your best interest to wait until that last round - a heal on round 4 won't actually buy you an extra round at all, since it would raise the fighter from 10 to 30, and the monster does 30 to him, KOing him despite your heal. You're better off switching to heals sooner (round 2 or 3, actually), and keeping them coming - or adjusting your tactics so that you're not having that damage come in every round. The smaller healing encourages you to change your tactics (and decisions to heal) faster than before, and to play smarter so the heals are less needed. And if that didn't look convincing, imagine switching it up, so that it's the players dealing the 30/round and the enemy is the one with the healing spells. Large, frequent Heals and the like would turn combats into grueling slugfests (unless you can get to the healer first); smaller heals allow for more varied tactics and let the players decide how to approach the challenge (and they can still hit the healer first if they want). They also see the tactics change up front when the enemy acolyte switches from support to healing, but they still don't necessarily know the HP that went into that decision - meanwhile, a single big heal like the first scenario is a signal that the enemy was low on HP. Again, I don't think it's a problem if you make Cure Wounds more dramatic. I just wanted to show why smaller heals are probably a deliberate design decision.
#4 AdrastusDarke Jun 09, 2015 23:34:18	I would double the poisons damage too as all dice for the attack are rolled twice, massive crits are what assassins are for. I could see an argument for not counting the poison as it's tied to a saving throw and not the attack roll but I would disagree with that. I don't think cure wounds is underpowered at any spell level but it does start to become less effective healing at higher slots, I think this is intentional however as it cements cure wounds as a healing spell you can consume low level slots to cast. It's very common for spells cast in a higher level slot to not be quite as effective as spells of that level.i don't see any problems coming from your houserule though so it should be absolutely fine.
#5 Kahless Jun 10, 2015 4:03:31	"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."
#6 QwertyAzerty Jun 10, 2015 5:09:49	Mr.Denver wrote:
#7 iserith Jun 10, 2015 5:48:31	Kahless wrote:
#8 Kahless Jun 10, 2015 13:50:28	Well, that will take some getting used to...
#9 Tempest_Stormwind Jun 10, 2015 14:24:57	Kahless wrote:

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

Mr.Denver

Jun 09, 2015 12:25:04

Dear fellow DMs

Yesterday I made two rulings and I would like to hear your opinion (and/or rules clarifications).

First of: Does/would you double the poison damage dealt by an assassins critical? I didn’t yesterday, as it would give a massive damage of 23d6+3 (14 of these being halved by successful saving throw).

Second: Cure Wounds cast at higher levels seems underpowered, so yesterday I ruled it being 1d8+bouns times spell slot (that is third level slot 3x(1d8+bonus).

Yours etc.

Jeep Denver

iserith

Jun 09, 2015 12:33:17

1. I would double all damage dice involved in the attack. Basic Rules, page 75: "When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."

2. I don't think it's underpowered, but neither do I think your ruling creates any problems with the game experience.

Tempest_Stormwind

Jun 09, 2015 13:42:00

I'm with Iserith on both points. Recall that upcast spells are supposed to be a bit weaker than native spells of a given level. Also, in a game where offense can be a defense in itself (since a dead foe doesn't hurt you), players are incentivised to heal at the last possible moment. Healing that's too strong means those last ditch heals will show up rarely; keeping them slightly weak means you're incentivised to use them slightly sooner, or switching strategy (against an enemy that also heals) to overwhelm them instead of outlasting them.

EDIT: Now that I'm at a full keyboard, I can elaborate a bit.

First, Cure Wounds' advantage is that it can be cast as a 1st level spell with pretty decent healing efficiency. The lack of multiplying the casting modifier on it means that upcast versions are less efficient by nature (and it's also consistent with multiplying in other places, like critical hits). Compare to higher-level healing spells, like Prayer of Healing (2nd level, 2d8+Wis to each of six separate targets), Aura of Vitality (3rd, 20d6 in 2d6/round bursts - however, this is a paladin exclusive spell) or Heal (6th, 70 plus some other goodies) - note that all of these can be done at range, while Cure Wounds has a range of Touch. The advantage to Cure Wounds is, again, that it can be cast out of a cheaper slot, or that it eats up only one spell known / prepared; the disadvantage is that it will be weaker when upcast relative to the existing spells of those levels.

I don't think multiplying the ability modifier actually breaks this, mind you. I'm just explaining some of the reasoning.

Regarding the second point.

Let's say you're a character with a healing spell prepped (a cleric, say), and your team's warrior has 100 hit points and is fighting a monster that deals 30 damage to the fighter every round (let's ignore crits on all sides here). The fighter can survive three hits before he reaches a point where the next hit will kill him; since dead foes don't fight back, he's at his best if he fights all-out until that point, and you're at your best if you concentrate on offense until the fighter reaches that point - regardless of how strong the healing spell is, it's in your best interests to fight offensively until you reach the point where the fighter will be KOed next round.

If your healing spell heals 70 HP (i.e. Heal), you hit that fourth round, pop off the spell, and keep fighting for another two rounds without adjusting your tactics. The heals are few and far between, and basically just serve as a way of flipping over the hourglass on an offensive combat. This style of gameplay is sometimes derided as "padded sumo", though it appeals to some (particularly if the gameplay's dynamic enough to keep it interesting, instead of just standing there wailing on your foe). 5e decided to make this style of gameplay unsustainable, since it depends on a 6th level slot (too high-level to use more than once or twice a day - enough to be a dramatic turnaround when it happens, rather than another flip of the hourglass.)

If your healing spell heals 20 HP (which a 4th level Cure Wounds would do, more or less), you actually are not in your best interest to wait until that last round - a heal on round 4 won't actually buy you an extra round at all, since it would raise the fighter from 10 to 30, and the monster does 30 to him, KOing him despite your heal. You're better off switching to heals sooner (round 2 or 3, actually), and keeping them coming - or adjusting your tactics so that you're not having that damage come in every round. The smaller healing encourages you to change your tactics (and decisions to heal) faster than before, and to play smarter so the heals are less needed.

And if that didn't look convincing, imagine switching it up, so that it's the players dealing the 30/round and the enemy is the one with the healing spells. Large, frequent Heals and the like would turn combats into grueling slugfests (unless you can get to the healer first); smaller heals allow for more varied tactics and let the players decide how to approach the challenge (and they can still hit the healer first if they want). They also see the tactics change up front when the enemy acolyte switches from support to healing, but they still don't necessarily know the HP that went into that decision - meanwhile, a single big heal like the first scenario is a signal that the enemy was low on HP.

Again, I don't think it's a problem if you make Cure Wounds more dramatic. I just wanted to show why smaller heals are probably a deliberate design decision.

AdrastusDarke

Jun 09, 2015 23:34:18

I would double the poisons damage too as all dice for the attack are rolled twice, massive crits are what assassins are for. I could see an argument for not counting the poison as it's tied to a saving throw and not the attack roll but I would disagree with that.

I don't think cure wounds is underpowered at any spell level but it does start to become less effective healing at higher slots, I think this is intentional however as it cements cure wounds as a healing spell you can consume low level slots to cast. It's very common for spells cast in a higher level slot to not be quite as effective as spells of that level.i don't see any problems coming from your houserule though so it should be absolutely fine.

Kahless

Jun 10, 2015 4:03:31

"When you score a critical hit, you get to roll extra dice for the attack’s damage against the target. Roll all of the attack’s damage dice twice and add them together. Then add any relevant modifiers as normal."

QwertyAzerty

Jun 10, 2015 5:09:49

Mr.Denver wrote:

iserith

Jun 10, 2015 5:48:31

Kahless wrote:

Kahless

Jun 10, 2015 13:50:28

Well, that will take some getting used to...

Tempest_Stormwind

Jun 10, 2015 14:24:57

Kahless wrote: