What would change with % based healing?

[linklord231]

As it stands now, characters with more HP are the ones healing spells are "wasted" on.  It takes more casts to get the back up to full, which means one cast does less for the Barbarian than it does for the Wizard. 
With % based healing, one cast does the same for the Barbarian as for the Wizard, even though the actual number of HP healed is different. 

[Rejakor]

Actually, healing, in low-op groups that don't wandwhip, tends to go to most in danger of getting knocked out/dying first.  Or, if the DM isn't doing his job, the 'tank(s)'.

If the wizard gets hit with a longsword for 7 damage, and the barbarian gets hit 3 times with a longsword for 21 total damage, one spell could conceivably heal the barbarian to full while not healing the wizard all the way.  That's not 'the same', that's 3 longsword hits healed vs 1 longsword hit healed, with the same spell.

Casts to incoming damage is what i'm talking about.  It's vastly more efficient to heal the higher hp pool people than the lower hp pool people, assuming that damage isn't a % of health as well (which I don't think is being proposed here).  So it doesn't make tactical sense, under a % system, to heal the squishy caster.  And if you have to, you'll feel like a chump for doing so, because you're 'wasting' heals that could be wiping out 3-4 longswords worth of damage in a single cast on a guy who's only taken 1 longsword hit, and the cure doesn't even heal that up completely.

If the wizard has taken 2 longsword hits and is on 40% health, and the barbarian has taken 5 longsword hits and is on 60% health, the barb is going to get the heals and the wizard is going to go begging.  It just encourages MMO-style 'tanking' and whatever for the DM, because the cleric won't want to 'waste' heals on the wizard.

[Lycanthromancer]

Actually, healing, in low-op groups that don't wandwhip, tends to go to most in danger of getting knocked out/dying first.  Or, if the DM isn't doing his job, the 'tank(s)'.

If the wizard gets hit with a longsword for 7 damage, and the barbarian gets hit 3 times with a longsword for 21 total damage, one spell could conceivably heal the barbarian to full while not healing the wizard all the way.  That's not 'the same', that's 3 longsword hits healed vs 1 longsword hit healed, with the same spell.

Casts to incoming damage is what i'm talking about.  It's vastly more efficient to heal the higher hp pool people than the lower hp pool people, assuming that damage isn't a % of health as well (which I don't think is being proposed here).  So it doesn't make tactical sense, under a % system, to heal the squishy caster.  And if you have to, you'll feel like a chump for doing so, because you're 'wasting' heals that could be wiping out 3-4 longswords worth of damage in a single cast on a guy who's only taken 1 longsword hit, and the cure doesn't even heal that up completely.

If the wizard has taken 2 longsword hits and is on 40% health, and the barbarian has taken 5 longsword hits and is on 60% health, the barb is going to get the heals and the wizard is going to go begging.  It just encourages MMO-style 'tanking' and whatever for the DM, because the cleric won't want to 'waste' heals on the wizard.

Thing is, it's partially %-based (based on the target) and partially based on the caster and his caster level (and Heal check). So if you do 30%+15 hp of healing, that wizard might just be up to full even if he had a lower percentage left than the barbarian did.

[Bauglir]

Actually, healing, in low-op groups that don't wandwhip, tends to go to most in danger of getting knocked out/dying first.  Or, if the DM isn't doing his job, the 'tank(s)'.

If the wizard gets hit with a longsword for 7 damage, and the barbarian gets hit 3 times with a longsword for 21 total damage, one spell could conceivably heal the barbarian to full while not healing the wizard all the way.  That's not 'the same', that's 3 longsword hits healed vs 1 longsword hit healed, with the same spell.

Casts to incoming damage is what i'm talking about.  It's vastly more efficient to heal the higher hp pool people than the lower hp pool people, assuming that damage isn't a % of health as well (which I don't think is being proposed here).  So it doesn't make tactical sense, under a % system, to heal the squishy caster.  And if you have to, you'll feel like a chump for doing so, because you're 'wasting' heals that could be wiping out 3-4 longswords worth of damage in a single cast on a guy who's only taken 1 longsword hit, and the cure doesn't even heal that up completely.

If the wizard has taken 2 longsword hits and is on 40% health, and the barbarian has taken 5 longsword hits and is on 60% health, the barb is going to get the heals and the wizard is going to go begging.  It just encourages MMO-style 'tanking' and whatever for the DM, because the cleric won't want to 'waste' heals on the wizard.

Is it actually a problem to give melee nice things? If the wizard's taking longsword hits he needs to get out of melee or make himself immune to swording.

[veekie]

Also odds are the base healing really would fix up the wizard to full anyway. His real concern is being oneshotted and thus being unable to be healed.

[Rejakor]

% + base healing is the idea?  Eh.  That's just.. almost the worst of both worlds.

Plus, math.

Wizards never getting hit and becoming immune to damage either obviates the need for healing (the party is immune to damage, those spell slots are spent on dispels, rebuffing, and removing conditions) or means the wizards are now playing the 'I win' game and everyone else isn't so it's a moot point.

If you want healing to be a resource, just create healing spells that are meaningful in terms of the barbarian's hitpoints.  It's so much simpler than a % based system, and still works with all the healing based feats and prestige classes in the game.

[Bauglir]

I mean, I'd expect the wizard to take the route of staying out of melee and having a new and unprecedented incentive to actually buff the beatstick since that's pretty much the best way to ensure said beatstick is a bigger threat and therefore drawing the most fire. I prefer the version that heals based on the the target's hit dice, rather than a flat percent with some base (which just seems inelegant for at-the-table use, though it would work well in a computer game or PbP), but it's not really a problem for any of the reasons you've brought up. It's definitely a different paradigm, though.

[snakeman830]

Well, the idea behind the base+% is as follows:  Casual healers, like your average buffer Cleric that on occasion throws out a Cure spell, will see no change, really.  Dedicated (fully or otherwise) healers, on the other hand, will shoot from being pathetic to rather viable.  This way, healing can actually match incoming damage and at the same time they're doing more than just healing a measly amount of hit points.

[linklord231]

Unfortunately, it also inconveniences the players of casual healer more, because it means more things to keep track of (ranks in Heal, number of HP that equate to X%). But in this case, I personally think inconveniencing casual healers is the lesser of two evils.

[skydragonknight]

You'd want a simple program to go along with these rules, a 'healing calculator' just how there are experience calculators online. Just plug in Heal Modifier, Target's Max HP, etc. and have it roll/add appropriately.

I'd almost advise against this for tabletop, but even a cheap calculator can give you the answer well within 15 seconds.

[veekie]

Or you can make the % intervals based in increments of 10%, which are much faster to compute mentally.