D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

[Celtavian]

The no-stacking rule is on PHB 204. "The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap."

So if you have Aid on you already, the only way to get more Aid is to cast it at higher level.

Just an FYI, I don't pre-buff aid. The strategy I'm considering in a specific instance when a ranged heal is required is to use aid as the ranged heal to get someone back on their feet. The advantage being you get a similar effect to healing word and you get to buff two other party members with five extra hit points. So you cast the aid during the battle as a ranged heal with an additional bolstering effect. This is a highly effective low level AoE Heal option that allows you to preserve spell slots. You should only need a ranged heal in a tough fight. If the fight is already tough, you're getting a really great effect from aid not only getting the fallen player back on his feet, but bolstering your allies.

My caster strategy is always to preserve spell slots. Not pre-buffing aid allows me to use aid for a dual purpose ranged heal and party buff.

As far as the rule debate, this is how we play it. It is only useful when the PC is at zero hit points. As usual, your table, your rules.

I've read that. There is no combining. One replaces the other. You've already lost the five hit points. The new hit points will be the highest bonus. We're talking about a situation where a ranged heal or heal-like effect would be required. Aid serves that purpose for a zero hit point individual that has already lost the extra five hit points from the previous aid.

 

[Celtavian]

Again, experience differs. We had to use more combat healing at low level than high level.

Why would you use heailng word at higher level? This is what I don't understand. We had to use mass cure wounds at higher level or higher level cure wound spells due to the higher damage output by the enemy.

The difference is 2 per spell level. So, when I say the difference is fairly minor I really do mean over the entire course of the spell. 4 or 6 hp difference is less than a single hit's difference. Depending on the type of combat, that might round in your favor, and it might not.

A third level cure wounds heals between 17 and 18. A 3rd level healing word between 11 and 12. That is a substantial difference in a slot. On top of the potential difference that might occur for a high roll or when used in conjunction with a spell like beacon of hope I think it is called when you are maximizing the effect of heal spells.

And, to reiterate, I'm just talking about the spell Cure Wounds. Aid and Mass Cure Wounds are different stories. If you gave Cure Wounds just slightly more oomph, I'd even be on board with it, but otherwise _for most groups_, it's misleading advice that could get them in trouble.

Not sure why it would be. Groups should be rarely using cure wounds or healing word[/I ]as they level. Even lair actions wipe someone out in really tough fights if they're at zero. You toss a 1st level healing word in a lair action or AoE scenario, they're done anyway. They key to surviving encounters with higher damage output at higher level is getting as many hit points into the character as possible. Otherwise, you're wasting your time.

I'd rather see you describe a specific scenario where healing word was better to continue this debate. I don't see the validity of your argument. I heal quite often. You have to be able to get the hit points past a certain threshold for a healing spell to be useful. You can['t for example toss out a healing word because someone is down if you know the slot is going to be wasted.

The most trouble I've ever seen groups have with D&D is when they overfocused on defense and healing, and just couldn't take care of threats. Attrition starts out in favor of the PCs, but numbers and hp pools almost always go to the monsters. Your group is not in that boat, but many others get there.

We are the opposite. The most death we've seen is in groups that don't have a good healer. Spike damage from crits. Surprisingly effective tactics by the opponent that immediately put the PCs at a hit point deficit and a woefully unprepared healer that can't get them back up quickly. A key character going down quickly to focused attacks and the cleric can't get them back up above the hit point threshold they need to survive.

We were told the same thing in 3E. We tried it. We got wasted because it is extremely easy for a DM to bring heavy offense against PCs in a game. The real advantage PCs have over the NPCs is defensive and healing options. It is what usually sets them apart and decides the day.

I find this very odd. The DM can rarely justify healing during encounter design. He has an easier time justifying heavy offense. The primary way a DM challenges an party is by making the opponent's offense so strong that PCs are overwhelmed. The main way the PCs have to counter this is healing and defense (crowd control, resistance, and the like). If they go heavy offense, they lose due to attrition because they usually have fewer members.

The above primarily considers major encounters. Minor encounters we don't use combat healing either. We don't need it. Minor encounters are generally defeated with nearly no hit point loss. We often send scouts to clear minor encounter like room guards or single powerful monsters like an ogre. They don't even require the use of the entire party's resources. Sometimes your wasting resources by sending melee martials into battle against something you can kill at range before it can even enter battle.

Strategy is an extremely complex and situational discussion. My spell choice is generally for main encounters (extremely powerful enemies) built for wiping the party out where healing and defense is the main way we survive. It's not for wandering around a dungeon wiping out a few rooms or fighting a single BBEG in a room with a few henchmen. Those types of encounters are generally easy and don't require much combat healing. The DM needs to put out the kitchen sink (which we usually do) to get us to combat heal like when we fought five young red dragons, two mounted wizards with 4th level spells, ten dragon cultist, and eight dragon fighters. That was a nuts battle at level 13 or 14.

I've been there (see the work I did for Epic 4E LFR), but that's not a stance I feel works in 5E. Give the characters more interesting options and I can be on board, but otherwise it just devolves to mathing the time away for me.

I might adjust for 5E. It's not like 3E where a powerful healer can undo the massive damage that existed in 3E in a round. The math in 5E is different. I will have to adjust accordingly.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm surprised to hear a sell for cure wounds over healing word. At lower levels the ability to attack the same round, have range, not move, etc is huge.

I don't understand how the cleric isn't forced into melee thus making cure wounds hard to use in combat.

Why would cure wounds be hard to use? There are no AoOs for casting it in combat any longer. A cleric can use a shield and cast sacred flame quite easily. I like to use my bonus action for spiritual weapon once I get a second level slot. I don't want to use it for healing word.

But I only think of healing as bringing the PC back up because that lost round of attack you give up "can" be huge depending on the foe.

You don't lose the round if you're using spiritual weapon. It shifts from a cantrip or melee attack to a spiritual weapon attack.

 

[Celtavian]

Well, this might help explain why his group can take on mega-CR encounters.

Someone is being a snarky donkeyhat.

If one has an Aid spell up for 5 current and 5 total, it should not even replace the 5 current if they are lost. That spell is still up.

Granted, at 0 hit points, a given DM might rule that it does, but in my mind, if the spell is still up, it's still up. The new 5 current hit points is not more potent than the original 5 current hit points, so it does not replace them. If a 5 point Aid were replaced with a 10 point Aid, I would then only allow the 0 hit point PC 5 additional current hit points. A different DM might give out the 10.

That's in your mind. Zero hit points means the new aid is the more potent effect. Combine means something completely different than replace in any dictionary I've read. The aid spells are not being combined, one is replacing the other.

 

[Celtavian]

First off, we were comparing Healing Word with Cure Wounds earlier, not with Aid. You kind of shifted the goal post by now comparing Aid with Healing Word.


Second, one has to compare a Healing Word bumped to second level with an Aid spell due to the second level spell slot requirement.

And yes, +5 hit points to three PCs (if 3 PCs are within range) is typically better than +8 (or +10) hit points to one PC. But if someone is going to cast Aid, then doing it at the beginning of the adventuring day often makes more sense. It then costs zero actions to cast it in combat and all of your ally targets do not have to be within 30 feet.

And your comment that a caster can only cast a cantrip with Healing Word doesn't make sense. With Aid, a caster cannot cast anything else either and is limited even more (no attack action, no cantrip spell). Plus, we are talking Aid and Healing Word here. The two classes that have both of these are Cleric and Paladin. At least in our game, both the Cleric and the Paladin use melee attacks.

So an attack action plus 8+ heal of Healing Word > no attack action plus 15 heal of Aid in most circumstances (the main exception is if multiple PCs are unconscious). In fact for the Cleric, a cantrip plus Healing Word > Aid in many circumstances.


Now granted, at higher level slots, Aid starts pulling ahead. Even in a third level slot, Aid does 30 total to Healing Word's 11 or so. But as a general rule of thumb, it's still often better to cast it at the beginning of the adventuring day (i.e. if the PCs suspect that they are going to get into fights, just before going into the dungeon, or into the sewers, or goes to confront the Duke, or whatever, not immediately when the party wakes up).

The pros and cons of doing that are: Pros, no need to cast in combat, no chance of only 1 or 2 PCs being within 30 feet, PCs are Aided even if the Cleric goes unconscious, the extra Aid points might prevent a PC from going unconscious from a given attack or dying from a huge damaging attack; Cons, might not have the PCs who need it the most, if a PC gets hit with a huge damaging attack, the extra Aid points were not necessarily helpful at all.


However, Aid > Cure Wounds as well once one bumps it to level 3 (+10 to 3 PCs vs. ~+17 to 1 PC). Unless we are talking a single PC getting injured, Aid tends to work better than the Cure Wounds or Healing Words spells at higher level and is a bit irrelevant to the Healing Word vs. Cure Wounds discussion.

Did you just entirely forget about spiritual weapon? One of the strongest low level attack spells?

I'm starting to see why some are choosing healing word over cure wounds. Clerics in 5E use spiritual weapon quite a bit as soon as they get it at 3rd level. It requires the use of a bonus action. A cure wounds spell you can use while you're continuing to attack.

At least with keterys I sort of understand him wanting to be able to heal at range using the weeble-wobble 5E healing rules where you're fully effective once you stand up if his party is spread out. It doesn't fit our strategy. It might fit the way his group plays. I can accept that.

The bonus action is valuable. I like to use it with spiritual weapon at low level. The first three levels pass go so quickly, I get the spell before healing word versus cure wounds matters.

 

[Celtavian]

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think it quite fits us. It might fit me if I were a player (uncommon lately), but my players' brilliance is more lateral than tactical. That is, less "the tactical value of covering chokepoints is obvious" and more "I've got this bag of devouring which sucks you in if you put a limb in, and I've got this gigantic chainworm eating my dead buddy that I want to run away from--hey DM, can I run up, hit the chainworm with Stunning Strike, and then put one of its limbs in the mouth of the bag?"

My group doesn't really understand the defensive importance of dispersed formations in 5E, and we don't have a healer at all any more let alone grok the superiority of Healing Word over Cure Wounds... but they are awesomely brilliant in their own way and we have fun.

Haha. Sounds like you have players newer to the game having fun rather than jaded lifers that use strategy like we're putting on an old, worn hat. I miss those days when I didn't know any better and tried whatever came to mind.

 

[KarinsDad]

That's in your mind. Zero hit points means the new aid is the more potent effect. Combine means something completely different than replace in any dictionary I've read. The aid spells are not being combined, one is replacing the other.

What about at 1 hit point? Does the PC get 4 hit points, or 5 hit points?

 

[Celtavian]

What about at 1 hit point? Does the PC get 4 hit points, or 5 hit points?

Anywhere between 1 and 4 the PC would end up with 5. It would not add to the total because it is not an actual heal. It would replace the aid spell hit points. That is how we play it. No idea if that is how the official rule is, but that is how we play it. The spell replaces the spell in effect.

As I stated to emdw45, I don't pre-buff aid. I use it as a ranged AoE heal at low level. If you're just trying to get someone on their feet, it works. That is how it seems keterys is using it.

You like the bonus action for doing other things like using a cantrip or a weapon attack. You may be using it with a class that benefits from that choice like a bard or war priest. I like spiritual weapon in combat. It's one of the few no concentration spells that can be used in combination with other attack options.

 

[KarinsDad]

Did you just entirely forget about spiritual weapon? One of the strongest low level attack spells?

I'm starting to see why some are choosing healing word over cure wounds. Clerics in 5E use spiritual weapon quite a bit as soon as they get it at 3rd level. It requires the use of a bonus action. A cure wounds spell you can use while you're continuing to attack.

At least with keterys I sort of understand him wanting to be able to heal at range using the weeble-wobble 5E healing rules where you're fully effective once you stand up if his party is spread out. It doesn't fit our strategy. It might fit the way his group plays. I can accept that.

The bonus action is valuable. I like to use it with spiritual weapon at low level. The first three levels pass go so quickly, I get the spell before healing word versus cure wounds matters.

Our Cleric did use Spiritual Weapon quite a bit at levels 3 and 4. But what she found out is that many tougher combats are spread out ones against multiple foes. That's one of the reasons that they are tougher encounters. If we have an encounter with 2 or 3 separate groups of foes, Spiritual Weapon can easily have 1 or more rounds just being moved and not being used. At level 5, she used it at first, ran into the encounter with the Dragon (trying to add more damage) and the Dragon was all over the place. SW was used for a single round because the dragon was never close to it again. At that point, she stopped prepping it. Course, that was only "yesterday" in game time (2 sessions ago), so it's possible she'll use it again. But in her mind, I think it has lost a lot of its luster.

My encounters are not often smaller rooms where front lines can be formed and groups of foes can be AoEed (alternatively, the last fight the group was in was a maze of 5 foot wide corridors where PCs had to shoot ranged weapons past each other; in our game, that means a cover bonus and a chance to hit any intervening creatures).

So certain tactics that might work well cannot be done often. Sometimes they can, sometimes they cannot.

But healing in combat is something that rarely happens except for the tough fights. Even if a PC goes unconscious, they might not be healed with a spell if the fight is basically over.


As for Aid, we have many casters in our group. We have a Paladin (who often casts a second level Aid) and a Cleric (who often casts a third level Aid). Currently, we have something like 40 spells per day. Casting 2 spells at the beginning of the day is white noise. ~5% of the possible spells and it minimizes wasting actions for in combat healing. Definitely worth it. The more powerful Aid tends to go to the PCs who get damaged the most often / easiest, not necessarily the front line guys (who are rarely hit and have damage mitigation).

At higher levels, it makes even more sense to cast Aid when it becomes an even lower percentage of overall spells per day.

When it comes to Action Economy, I think that wasting full actions (as opposed to bonus actions) healing in combat is often a subpar tactic. Even using Aid as a third level spell (heal 10 for 3 PCs, total 30) is way subpar to Mass Healing Word (heal 4 to 9 for 6 PCs, total 24 to 54). In a big fight where everyone is injured and 2 PCs just went down, Mass Healing Word is just superior to the same level slot of Aid.

 

[KarinsDad]

Anywhere between 1 and 4 the PC would end up with 5. It would not add to the total because it is not an actual heal. It would replace the aid spell hit points. That is how we play it. No idea if that is how the official rule is, but that is how we play it. The spell replaces the spell in effect.

So you play it that the last points lost are the bonus Aid points instead of the first points lost.

That means that if a PC is at 3 hit points and the Aid is dispelled or the duration goes away, the PC goes unconscious. If it is the first points lost, then when the spell expires, nothing happens to the PC. He's at 3 hit points.

The other result of it being the first points lost is that if the PC normally has 50 hit points and his hit point maximum is 60 due to Aid and he currently has 52, then when the spell goes away, he's at 50 out of 50. With your interpretation, he would be at 42 out of 50.

Just clarifying here. It's fine that you play that way at your table, one just has to understand the implications and if one of these situations comes up, follow through as a DM.

I think that first points lost makes more sense to the players and is simpler (points above max are lost when spell goes away, otherwise, nothing happens to hit points).