D&D 5E Is Xanathars The New UA? AKA A Munchkins Book

[The Crimson Binome]

No.

Okay, I'll bite. Maybe you have some reference point that I don't know about, which hasn't come up yet. What do you think is the best healing spell that can be cast during combat? If you have a player playing a healer, and someone is low on HP during combat, what do they cast in order to recover the most HP?

Because every cleric or paladin I've ever seen, at least before getting to high levels, has always resorted to Cure Wounds or Healing Word. If there's another healing spell, then I don't know about it.

Now I would agree with you that having 2 spells of the same level that have such a dramatic difference in effectiveness at the same task is poor design. We are in agreement on that.

Where I'm betting we would disagree is on which spell is the problem.

No, I agree that Find Traps is a bad spell, and that it would be better if it had been Locate and Disarm Traps. That goes back to the previously-mentioned situational analysis of resource efficiency. You're usually better off not worrying about the trap, and using the spell slot to heal some of the damage, rather than casting Find Traps to possibly learn about a trap that you can't locate or remove.

Unless you're arguing that all existing out-of-combat healing magic is worthless, though, then I can't understand why you'd want to introduce a vastly-superior spell that isn't even allowed to the main healing class. It would be like saying that Fireball is a terrible spell that wizards should never cast, and then introducing a Double-Fireball spell that was only allowed to druids. It doesn't address the root of the problem that you claim to perceive.

 

[Ancalagon]

Not to get off-topic, but role-playing means that you make decisions as your character would. If the decision you make as your character is to learn spells that are ten times less effective than the alternative, then the character you are role-playing is a moron.

You can certainly have fun, playing a character less intelligent than yourself. For many, that is not their preference, but it's no less role-playing for those who choose to do so.

My point is just that role-playing and optimization are often the same thing. For most people in most cases, "building a combo to get great abilities" is the role-playing solution, because they're role-playing as someone who is competent.

To contrast, treating the whole game like a work of fiction, and making decisions for your character based on what would be a good story, is pure meta-gaming. Leaving aside the question of whether it's bad or wrong, it's not role-playing.

I do get your point about taking a decision based on what is a good story vs "what would my character do", and it's a valid one.

*However*

You're on shakier ground than you realize about "competence".

First, while *you* may have a PHB, your character *doesn't*. You don't know what powers will be available to you in the future. So any build decision that is taken based on "I don't need to take spell X at level 1 because at level 5 there is another one that will do the same but better" or similar future consideration is bad roleplaying.

Second, you are talking about expediency and efficiency. These are modern western values that were forged in the Enlightenment. Your character may not think in rational terms.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

First, while *you* may have a PHB, your character *doesn't*. You don't know what powers will be available to you in the future. So any build decision that is taken based on "I don't need to take spell X at level 1 because at level 5 there is another one that will do the same but better" or similar future consideration is bad roleplaying.

The rules in the book are a pale reflection of their underlying reality. The only thing that the players can see are a couple of numbers in some books. The characters are the ones who actually live in that world. If the character is in a position where they would be choosing between spells, then they should know perfectly well what options will be available to them later on. Fireball and Burning Hands are both discrete spells that exist within the world, and a wizard may well decide to not study the latter now because they plan to study the former at a later date.

Second, you are talking about expediency and efficiency. These are modern western values that were forged in the Enlightenment. Your character may not think in rational terms.

The fantasy genre which D&D represents is a post-Enlightenment construct, which may well contain anachronistically rational characters. Whether or not the default assumptions support that, I would expect it to be handled at the Setting level. Historical fantasy, such as Pendragon, may be held to different standards.

 

[jgsugden]

Not to get off-topic, but role-playing means that you make decisions as your character would. If the decision you make as your character is to learn spells that are ten times less effective than the alternative, then the character you are role-playing is a moron.

I guess this is why we all drive the same car, have the same job and eat the same food. I mean, some cars, jobs and food are clearly better than others... so ...

 

[Mistwell]

Sometimes I wonder if the game drifted too far from the OD&D concept of hit points being the number of hits you can withstand. Because ultimately healing hit points isn't really the issue, it's how many rounds you can sustain being hit.

So for example if a PC will go down in one more hit, and you are healing them, the only consideration really is how many more hits they can withstand after your healing versus before that healing. If you're not actually gaining them an additional round of being able to withstand hits, your healing spell was essentially useless (though it has some occasional use for preventing death from mass damage).

So if cure wounds doesn't heal them enough to sustain an additional hit from the foe, what's the point? Why not wait until they go down and give them a ranged healing word (as a bonus action) instead? And yes, healing word applied once unconscious only gives them one more round of hits...which is the same as your cure wounds was doing.

In most case I find in-combat healing is purely to get someone back on their feet. It doesn't much matter which spell is doing it - you won't heal them enough to sustain more than one hit likely anyway, they just need to be able to stand and disengage. So if it's your familiar feeding them a goodberry to get them back on their feet, or a healing word, or a rogue (thief) using their fast hands ability to interact with their healers kit by way of the Healer feat, or a cure wounds, or an aura of vitality spell, or a Life Cleric's Channel Divinity: Preserve Life ability, or whatever, it's all essentially the same. They're all to give someone a round to get out of there. Use the resource you can most easily afford to expend.

 

[Zardnaar]

This it gets a bit whack a mole but overall healing in 5E in combat not so much. Thief plus healer feat is funny short range unlimited weak healing word.

 

[Maxperson]

You can certainly have fun, playing a character less intelligent than yourself. For many, that is not their preference, but it's no less role-playing for those who choose to do so.

My point is just that role-playing and optimization are often the same thing. For most people in most cases, "building a combo to get great abilities" is the role-playing solution, because they're role-playing as someone who is competent.

To contrast, treating the whole game like a work of fiction, and making decisions for your character based on what would be a good story, is pure meta-gaming. Leaving aside the question of whether it's bad or wrong, it's not role-playing.

Differences of opinion do not equal less intelligent. I've been watching this debate fairly closely and you have yet to show that Healing Spirit is better than Rope Trick and some others, let alone far and away better. I've found the various comparisons to be very insightful and would count both spells as being roughly equal in value.

 

[Treantmonklvl20]

what do they cast in order to recover the most HP?

OK. Let's consider some real game applications.

Your 4th level party is in a fight with a Hill Giant. The Hill Giant hits the fighter doing 18 points of damage. The fighter only had 10 HP left. The fighter falls to 0HP and goes down.

A goodberry would bring him up to 1 HP
A healing word would bring him up to 1d4+3 HP (let's say 6)
A cure wounds would bring him up to 1d8+3 HP (let's say 8)
A healing word (II) would bring him up to 8
A cure wounds (II) would bring him up to 12

If the Hill Giant hits the Fighter again, the Fighter will take 3d8+5 damage (18 likely)

Now I would say that in this case, healing of 1 hp and healing of 12 hp is no different. One hit and the fighter goes down again.

However, if we apply your logic, Cure Wounds II is 12 times better than goodberry because it can bring the fighter up to 12 HP instead of 1 HP

I had a Ranger(Hunter)/Rogue(Arcane Trickster) that was a far better healer than the party Cleric. I used Arcane Trickster to access Find Familiar (got a bird) that delivered goodberries to downed party members.

So think about this. 10 times an ally could go down due to falling to 0Hp. 10 times I could bring them up (as well as stabalize of course). The range was about 60 feet for one round. This required neither an action nor a bonus action. Concentration was not required. It cost one first level spell slot.

And you then ask "Which do you think is the best in-combat healing spell?" and then you ask "Which spell do you think recovers the most HP?" as if it's the same question re-worded. It's not, and goodberry is far and away the best in-combat healing spell until at least mid level. Better than Healing Word, better than Healing Spirit, and WAY better than Cure Wounds, and it heals 1 HP.

Because every cleric or paladin I've ever seen, at least before getting to high levels, has always resorted to Cure Wounds or Healing Word. If there's another healing spell, then I don't know about it.

Thats because Druids and Rangers are better healers than Clerics and Paladins.

Here's what Clerics and Paladins are best at: Doing Damage. Having the same classes the best at doing damage AND healing would be crazy!

No, I agree that Find Traps is a bad spell, and that it would be better if it had been Locate and Disarm Traps. That goes back to the previously-mentioned situational analysis of resource efficiency. You're usually better off not worrying about the trap, and using the spell slot to heal some of the damage, rather than casting Find Traps to possibly learn about a trap that you can't locate or remove.

You missed the point. The point was that comparing Healing Spirit to Prayer of Healing is pointless if Prayer of Healing is a terrible and useless spell, even if Prayer of Healing was the only spell that was supposed to be used for out of combat healing.

Unless you're arguing that all existing out-of-combat healing magic is worthless,

Seriously? This sounds far fetched? I've been saying it over and over. YES. I am saying that the previously existing out-of-combat healing magic is worthless.

The only out of combat healing that was worthwhile was resting. Short rest/Long rest, either way, I would suspect far more healing is provided by resting in the game than by any out of combat healing spells. I suspect this holds post-Xanathar's as well.

though, then I can't understand why you'd want to introduce a vastly-superior spell that isn't even allowed to the main healing class.

You are mistaken. Druids were the best healing class prior to Xanathar's, and the best healing class post Xanathars. In fact, with Circle of Dreams Druids - it's not even close.

Though admittedly, Life Cleric/Circle of Dreams Druids are monster healers.

This isn't 2nd edition anymore. Now Clerics do more damage than Druids but Druids are better healers. (With the exception of Moon Druids from levels 2-4 - but that really is bad design)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Differences of opinion do not equal less intelligent. I've been watching this debate fairly closely and you have yet to show that Healing Spirit is better than Rope Trick and some others, let alone far and away better. I've found the various comparisons to be very insightful and would count both spells as being roughly equal in value.

I agree that Healing Spirit and Rope Trick are similar in value, in many situations. Healing Spirit is also vastly superior to Prayer of Healing, in other situations.

Rational people can disagree between whether to cast Healing Spirit or Rope Trick, in a situation where either would be beneficial, because there are benefits and drawbacks to each. No rational person can suggest casting Prayer of Healing rather than Healing Spirit, because Healing Spirit is superior in every way, to an extreme degree.

 

[Maxperson]

I agree that Healing Spirit and Rope Trick are similar in value, in many situations. Healing Spirit is also vastly superior to Prayer of Healing, in other situations.

My experience with 5e is still very limited. We just started playing it and nobody is a cleric. I'm also going to start running a game soon to learn that side of things. I say that, because I've seen pretty much everyone say that Prayer of Healing is bad, but have had no personal experience with it yet. Sometimes bad spells happen due to design error. Sometimes, though, and WotC has admitted doing this with Magic the Gathering, crappy things are deliberately designed so as to make the other stuff look better. If everything is good, then nothing actually LOOKS good. The contrast makes good things pop.