D&D 5E Healing

[variant]

Double post.

 

[variant]

Would anyone ever really use a 9th level slot to cast a Healing Word spell now?

If a spell you get at first level scales in power to the point it is identical a 9th level spell if used in the same spell slot, what would be the point of the 9th level spell? That 9th level spell would be fundamentally worse because it wouldn't have the flexibility of a 1st level spell that can be used in any of the spell slots up to 9th level.

 

[KarinsDad]

Even so, we've found plenty of healing potions along the way, so even if we didn't have a cleric at all, I feel like we'd be mostly OK, give or take a death save.

The Starter Set has a dozen potions of healing in it.

Compared to one of any other potion or scroll in it.

Anyone who uses the Starter Set as their main source of information might have a perspective that is influenced by magic item distribution.

For DMs who do not hand out a lot of potions of healing, healing spells become more important.

 

[KarinsDad]

If a spell you get at first level scales in power to the point it is identical a 9th level spell if used in the same spell slot, what would be the point of the 9th level spell? That 9th level spell would be fundamentally worse because it wouldn't have the flexibility of a 1st level spell that can be used in any of the spell slots up to 9th level.

I agree with you.

I just think that the balance is way out of whack.

700 hit points for the 9th level spell vs. 132 hit points for the 3rd level spell bumped to 9th level. That's over 5 times stronger.

I would think that a 700 to 400 or so ratio would be better balanced. The 9th level spell would still be significantly better, but not to the point that the lower level spell is almost never used (even at lower levels where Mass Cure Wounds at 5th level is significantly better (50%) than Mass Healing Word bumped from 3rd to 5th level).

 

[Eirikrautha]

It's hard to really get a handle on the healing situation, without trying out the new numbers for a while. On the one hand, it's nice to get away from the ridiculously over-the-top amount of free healing in Pathfinder; but on the other hand, it almost feels like this is a waste of a spell slot - let alone the horribly inefficient waste of an action.

The thing that I'm finding difficult to comprehend is why they toned magical healing so far down, when they've turned natural healing so far up​.

You've partly answered your own question. Natural healing got tuned up because of the nature of bounded accuracy. If character progression will not be tracked by bonuses to hit, the only other options for differentiating high-level from low-level is using hit points and damage-dealing. This in turn means that, to get a sense of drama and threat, your creatures need to do a commensurate amount of damage to players.

So you have a PC down lots of points. Your only options at this point are natural healing or magical healing. If you choose (as the designer) to make magical healing superior, you are then requiring the presence of a healer/cleric in the party... something that has plagued groups forever in RPGs. By inverting the power-levels, you make a healer-less party still viable, while letting a healer still have a role. It's the logical progression of the new design.

 

[Emerikol]

I think raw numbers the healing spell raised to 9th level should be about as good as the 9th level spell. I'd just give the 9th level spell a lot more flexibility.

For those of you wanting to avoid using non-magical healing, you could add 1 target HD per level of the healing spell in addition to what it already does. That would mean though there is no non-magical HD recovery.

I really hope they provide an approach that avoids non-magical healing in the DMG.

 

[variant]

I agree with you.

I just think that the balance is way out of whack.

700 hit points for the 9th level spell vs. 132 hit points for the 3rd level spell bumped to 9th level. That's over 5 times stronger.

I would think that a 700 to 400 or so ratio would be better balanced. The 9th level spell would still be significantly better, but not to the point that the lower level spell is almost never used (even at lower levels where Mass Cure Wounds at 5th level is significantly better (50%) than Mass Healing Word bumped from 3rd to 5th level).

I don't see an issue. It's part of the balance of the class. Someone that prepares a 9th level spell can only cast it once and only in a 9th level spell slot. A 1st level spell can be cast 22 times in any level of spell slots.

It's the same way with damage spells. Burning Hands in a 9th level spell slot does 11d6 within a 30' cone next to the caster. Compare that to Meteor Swarm which does 40d6 in four different 40' radius spheres one mile out.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't see an issue. It's part of the balance of the class. Someone that prepares a 9th level spell can only cast it once and only in a 9th level spell slot. A 1st level spell can be cast 22 times in any level of spell slots.

It's the same way with damage spells. Burning Hands in a 9th level spell slot does 11d6 within a 30' cone next to the caster. Compare that to Meteor Swarm which does 40d6 in four different 40' radius spheres one mile out.

Well, Mass Healing Word is a 3rd level spell, not a 1st level spell. So, it could be cast 12 to 15 times depending on caster level, not 22.


I really do not understand the point of allowing boosted spells to be increased linearly if the higher level spells are going to be increased exponentially. That throws the entire bounded accuracy concept out the window. Increased fighter attacks are linear. Increased Rogue damage is linear. Increased hit points is linear.

Will NPCs be throwing out 40D6 meteor swarms (140 points of damage) at level 17 when the PCs have 100 to 250 hit points? How about if it is a Sorcerer with metamagic like Heightened or Quickened and they throw out another high level damaging spell simultaneously? If so, the game could end real quick.

Will most every player be taking the Tough feat, just because they lose one third to two thirds of their hit points in the first round of combat several times a day when facing enemy casters?


I definitely get what you are saying. But 5E monsters appear to be able to cast the same spells that PCs can (based on the stat blocks we have seen so far). Whenever that happens and a PC spell is a bit too good, it's a bit too good for the monsters as well.

What happens when the high level monsters start casting Mass Heal?

 

[Bryk]

It's hard to really get a handle on the healing situation, without trying out the new numbers for a while. On the one hand, it's nice to get away from the ridiculously over-the-top amount of free healing in Pathfinder; but on the other hand, it almost feels like this is a waste of a spell slot - let alone the horribly inefficient waste of an action.

The thing that I'm finding difficult to comprehend is why they toned magical healing so far down, when they've turned natural healing so far up​.

I think they are doing what they hoped I would do. Is going away from a healer being required. It still helps to have some healing over no healing. Sure you might think if the cleric can't keep someone up against tough creatures. I believe this is intended.

As a DM who has run 2 campaigns with D&D Next material, I simply could not take down a party with a Mountain Dwarf Life Cleric. It was just absurd. He had 23 AC (thank goodness Dwarves no longer get +1 to AC), and totaled 23 AC with 2 magic items which gave +1 (magic shield and magic armor). That with his healing, he could completely fill both the tank and healer role. IT HAD to get toned down.

In my homebrew campaign I am making enchantments for items (for a hefty price tag) that will be able to put on weapons/holy symbols that will increase healing a bit but not too much.

I rather have a system where DMs have to homebrew making something stronger (if they want the players to have to rely on healing), than a system where I have the wack the heck out of a class so that no one will want to play it.

As it is now, I can understand players not wanting to play a boring life cleric if they can't keep their entire party alive very easily, but if everyone else has a difficult time doing their job in even a boss fight except for the healer, then clearly something is wrong.

 

[Bryk]

I'm sure healing got a *lot* of thought. The last public playtest version of healing was the same as those alpha rules: double what the final version was. It was entirely a conscious decision to reign in its power.

It should be noted that when you prepare Cure Wounds as a 20th level cleric you are gaining versatility in the place of power. You can cast the spell using any of your slots. Meanwhile, if you prepare Mass Heal you've got a spell that can only be cast with your 9th level slot.

Using Cure Wounds with a 9th level slot will be a rare occurrence, I'm sure, but you have the ability if you need to. Versatility or Power? It's one of the interesting decisions that 5E gives spell casters.

Cheers!

Exactly this, They want to encourage classes getting higher level spells unlocked, thus balancing out multi-classing. Multi-classing will allow for strong combinations for low level spells, but the best will be saved for the 17+ pure classes. As such I am extremely thrilled that they took this approach. Low level spells will simply not scale quite as well as higher level spells, which in the playtest (Next), they scaled far too well, especially healing). Even the 6d6 Fireball iconic spell was being neglected by spells like the level 1 Thunderwave which could do similar damage when using a level 3 spell slot.