abirdcall
(she/her)
For example, a great weapon master/polearm master with 3 attacks at 5th level each potentially doing an extra +10 damage, similar ranged builds using crossbow expert/sharpshooter .. these are very powerful builds but I rarely see DMs banning them. On the other hand, healing spirit, whose only redeeming feature is that it does quite a lot of out of combat healing for a second level spell is consider OP and gets banned by some?
Paladin/sorcerer smite builds.
Sorerer/Warlock eldritch blast builds.
Our table doesn't use any of these things.
We're still playing D&D 'the right way'.
On the other hand, why ban one spell? I haven't found a single spell that is in any way really overpowered. Healing Spirit (if that is the spell being discussed) is far from OP. The only "problem" with it is that it is typically more effective than other out of combat healing options and the possibility of letting everyone in a party receive 10d6 of healing (or 10d6+40 in the case of a life cleric multiclass) can be useful.
The problem with Healing Spirit is that it invalidates other ways to heal. That is what overpowered means. It is the one thing needed for healing, all other abilities are meaningless. That isn't fun. The world doesn't explode, it just makes for a game that is less fun. So...just don't use it. Why isn't this an option that is considered reasonable? Because it is in a published book?
...or just use it in reasonably - 1 heal per round. Then it's a fun spell and the table doesn't have to 'game' it.
Last edited: