D&D 5E The Healing Spirit Nerf=Complete Overkill

[Flamestrike]

The numbers join up quite well. If you look near the end of the DMG there is a statement on sessions per level, and then if you divide out encounters into the XP you'd need to level and read other language on expected encounters per session - you end up with values that support that 6-8 statement being the baseline.

Yeah.

And if you run the math on abilities, you find the classes also balance at around the 2 short rest to 1 long rest point as well.

You can compare the extra damage (and healing) from a BM fighter and a Devotion Paladin of the same level (at a 2/1 rest frequency) and they more or less balance out.

Ditto a Warlock v a Wizard.

 

[Charlaquin]

The numbers join up quite well. If you look near the end of the DMG there is a statement on sessions per level, and then if you divide out encounters into the XP you'd need to level and read other language on expected encounters per session - you end up with values that support that 6-8 statement being the baseline.

And again, it’s fine if you break from that expectation! There’s nothing wrong with having a slightly easier or harder adventuring day than the game anticipates. It’s just useful to know what the expectation is so you can set the difficulty above or below it with intentionality.

 

[clearstream]

And again, it’s fine if you break from that expectation! There’s nothing wrong with having a slightly easier or harder adventuring day than the game anticipates. It’s just useful to know what the expectation is so you can set the difficulty above or below it with intentionality.

Exactly. It can be helpful to know what exists in RAW - and it is fine to break from that expectation. I have found the discussion in the DMG (Running the Game / Experience Points) quite useful. I shape my campaign to about 1.5x the suggested and that works pretty well for me. New DMs might find it useful to notice how few session the first tier is suggested to take.

 

[clearstream]

That's on those groups then. They're the ones that have somehow conflated 'adventuring day' with 'game session.' That definition isn't in the rules anywhere.

It's up to the players to record resource expenditure (slots, smites, rages, HP loss etc) as they progress. It should be written down on their character sheet what their curent HP, HD, slots used etc etc are.

It's not like the have to remember anything from session to session. It should all be written down, and if it's not, that's the DMs fault for not policing it.

My group more often splits adventuring days over multiple sessions, than not.

 

[dave2008]

The numbers join up quite well. If you look near the end of the DMG there is a statement on sessions per level, and then if you divide out encounters into the XP you'd need to level and read other language on expected encounters per session - you end up with values that support that 6-8 statement being the baseline.

And again, it’s fine if you break from that expectation! There’s nothing wrong with having a slightly easier or harder adventuring day than the game anticipates. It’s just useful to know what the expectation is so you can set the difficulty above or below it with intentionality.

Except your leaving out a huge part: short vs long rest. The whole point of certain number of encounters is to balance short vs long rest. The reason they don't explicitly say 6-8 encounters is that it can balance with far fewer, but more difficult encounters. I find the sweat spot to be 3-4 encounters with 2 short rests.

You are making assumptions by reverse engineering that leads you to partial truths. If 6-8 encounters was sacrosanct, they would say it. It is not.

 

[Charlaquin]

Except your leaving out a huge part: short vs long rest. The whole point of certain number of encounters is to balance short vs long rest. The reason they don't explicitly say 6-8 encounters is that it can balance with far fewer, but more difficult encounters. I find the sweat spot to be 3-4 encounters with 2 short rests.

You are making assumptions by reverse engineering that leads you to partial truths. If 6-8 encounters was sacrosanct, they would say it. It is not.

I never said it was sacrosanct. I said it was the assumption the system math is based on, and it is. That doesn’t mean the game will break if you don’t follow that assumption.

There is more that goes into that assumption than just the short/long rest balance. It’s also the amount of damage the players are expected to take and the amount of experience they’re expected to earn. But again, you don’t have to follow that baseline, you’ll just get different results than what the system was designed to achieve. Maybe results you’ll like better!

 

[Flamestrike]

My group more often splits adventuring days over multiple sessions, than not.

It depends on the length of the AD. Some of my days featuring encounters will only be 1 or 2 (usually deadly) encounters, most feature 4-6 hardish encounters, (and a rare few will have more than 6 encounters).

If I had to pick a long rest to session frequency its probably around 1 per session (some sessions they'll get 2 or even 3, sometimes its a 2 session wait for one.

My sessions tend to be around 6-8 hours in length, though. I love my all-nighters.

I reduce short rests to 5 minutes long (max of 2/ long rest) and also make spellcasters expend costly material components for spell casting (Leomunds has a small ruby worth 100 gp as its component IMG) which puts the brakes on a lot of spellcasting shennanigans.

I find that hits a nice balance point for me.

 

[Flamestrike]

Except your leaving out a huge part: short vs long rest. The whole point of certain number of encounters is to balance short vs long rest.

Not really.

As long as you're getting 2 short rests to every long rest, the classes largely balance, and you only need 3 encounters for that.

You are making assumptions by reverse engineering that leads you to partial truths. If 6-8 encounters was sacrosanct, they would say it. It is not.

But... no-one is saying 6-8/ 2 short rests per long rest is 'sacrosanct'.

We're only saying that the balance is largely maintained as long as you keep to that median, and the math of the game (and simple anecdotal evidence) demonstrates that.

There is nothing wrong with running single Deadly+++ encounter days from time to time, or running single meatgrinder days of 12 or more encounters, with no time to long rest (or the rest being interrupted with more encounters). In fact, that's a good thing (as it allows different classes to shine, and it moves the spotlight around).

There is a wealth of evidence not just in the math, but also from experience that the 6 encounter/ 2 short rest balancing point is a truism. How many threads have you seen where people complain about long rest classes (Paladins, Casters) dominating short rest ones (Warlocks, Monks, Fighters)?

And how often is the cause always (once you dig a bit deeper) down to 'I only run 1-2 encounter adventuring days most of the time' or 'the party never short rest' or both, in some combination?

 

[Blue]

What annoys me isn't people saying the spell was overtuned before, it clearly was, but people saying it's balanced now. No, no it's not.

It's the more efficient in-combat 2nd level healing spell we have. Just like Prayer of Healing is the most efficient out-of-combat 2nd level healing spell we have. Both of them serve multi-healing-with-one-slot niche that the lower level Cure Wounds and Healing Word spells do not cover.

Please, without comparing it to higher level spells (which offer things lower level spells don't), please show me how that's not balanced now.

 

[IndigoTraveler]

I don't see no such errata for the spell in my book when we use it.
Munches on ice in the glass cup.