D&D (2024) December 1st UA Spell changes

[Mistwell]

First do clerics have less utility than wizards? Healing is pretty huge utility.

Second clerics are a whole lot tougher - more hit points, better armour, can self-heal.

Yes, clerics have less utility than wizards. Utility is the wizards theme. It's not the theme for clerics. That has born out in practice, and not just for this edition. As you mention, healing is the theme of clerics - which is useful but focused and not utility.

Yes, clerics are tougher - in that they're expected to be in the mix and taking hits, unlike wizards are expected to stay in a back line out of direct trouble.

So I ask again, why shouldn't clerics do as much or more damage than wizards, particularly single-target direct damage?

 

[mellored]

True, but why must wizards do more damage than clerics given clerics have less utility than wizards?

Clerics have betted armor and hit dice. More defense should come along with less offense.

Sorcerers should do more damage IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yes, clerics have less utility than wizards. Utility is the wizards theme. It's not the theme for clerics. That has born out in practice, and not just for this edition.

As I say healing is pretty huge utility. It's big enough that it even gets put into its own category. When you discount healing clerics have less utility - but wizards don't heal.

Yes, clerics are tougher - in that they're expected to be in the mix and taking hits, unlike wizards are expected to stay in a back line out of direct trouble.

So I ask again, why shouldn't clerics do as much or more damage than wizards, particularly single-target direct damage?

Because wizards have better utility but clerics are tougher and can heal. And Clerics have very good utility - it comes with being a spellcaster.

Why should clerics be good at literally everything? Shouldn't every class be able to point to a weakness?

 

[Mistwell]

Clerics have betted armor and hit dice. More defense should come along with less offense.

Sorcerers should do more damage IMO.

Why should more defense come with less offense, since more defense along with a lot of close up healing requires they be put in more direct danger more often?

And sure, sorcerers should do more damage but we're not talking about that right now. Why shouldn't clerics do more damage than wizards, particularly single-target direct damage?

 

[Mistwell]

As I say healing is pretty huge utility. It's big enough that it even gets put into its own category. When you discount healing clerics have less utility - but wizards don't heal.

Because wizards have better utility but clerics are tougher and can heal. And Clerics have very good utility - it comes with being a spellcaster.

Why should clerics be good at literally everything? Shouldn't every class be able to point to a weakness?

Healing is focused, not across the board. We're using utility in this context to mean not useful, but swiss-army-knife "thing for every occasion" which is something healing simply isn't.

Clerics healing is great for the party but truly a bit of a burden for the player - it's not like utility is more like duty. They're tougher BECAUSE they are expected to heal and get in the mix and not stand back.

Clerics definitely are not good at literally everything. They're not good at utility. They don't do area damage well, they don't do utility things like levitating or opening locks or locating traps or teleporting or putting up force walls or solving for any of the dozens of things wizards do.

Why shouldn't clerics do direct single-target damage better than wizards, given wizards do almost everything better than them in terms of utility?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Healing is focused, not across the board. We're using utility in this context to mean not useful, but swiss-army-knife "thing for every occasion" which is something healing simply isn't.

Hit point healing is focused. But there is broader healing. Things like curing poison and disease, creating food, or raising people from the dead.

Clerics definitely are not good at literally everything. They're not good at utility. They don't do area damage well,

Which is the point.

they don't do utility things like levitating or opening locks or

They can certainly make it easier

locating traps

Oh no?

or teleporting or putting up force walls or solving for any of the dozens of things wizards do.

They do a lot of solving. The only thing you've mentioned that wizards get that clerics don't relates to mobility.

Why shouldn't clerics do direct single-target damage better than wizards, given wizards do almost everything better than them in terms of utility?

Because clerics have more utility than you realise, do more baseline damage (by d8), are tougher, buff better, and have better healing.

Clerics might not have the best utility, but they have excellent utility. They also have very good toughness, excellent baseline damage, the best healing, and excellent buffing. Other than their damage clerics are incredible all-rounders, the best at some things and at least second tier at literally everything.

Wizards have probably the best utility. They also have the worst durability, relatively low baseline damage (bards are the worst), zero healing, and average buffing.

Or, to put things another way, the cleric package when you aren't casting a levelled spell is better - both for the cantrips and for weapon attacks and for durability (and they get things like channel). And clerics get areas of magic wizards can't touch; when they overlap wizards should normally be better.

Why do you think that the literal only comparison that matters should be non-healing utility?

 

[Mistwell]

Because clerics have more utility than you realise, do more baseline damage (by d8), are tougher, buff better, and have better healing.

Oh it's just I don't understand (realize)?

I've been playing a cleric in 5e for 5 years now. I also played a wizard for about that same amount of time. I assure you, I understand just fine. The cleric, hands down, has far less utility than the wizard. They are tougher, and heal better. They don't even buff better, except in the most simplistic (direct) ways but they don't do battlefield control very well which means they don't do the more powerful buffs to the entire party like the wizard.

Clerics might not have the best utility, but they have excellent utility.

Relative to the wizard, it's pretty meh.

They also have very good toughness, excellent baseline damage, the best healing, and excellent buffing. Other than their damage clerics are incredible all-rounders, the best at some things and at least second tier at literally everything.

Please do tell me what you think their "excellent baseline damage" is? Because in my experience a chunk of their baseline damage (which was never great) just got heavily nerfed (Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon). Which itself was boring but at least it was fairly consistently OK. Now it's not even that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Oh it's just I don't understand (realize)?

I've been playing a cleric in 5e for 5 years now. I also played a wizard for about that same amount of time. I assure you, I understand just fine. The cleric, hands down, has far less utility than the wizard. They are tougher, and heal better. They don't even buff better, except in the most simplistic (direct) ways but they don't do battlefield control very well which means they don't do the more powerful buffs to the entire party like the wizard.


Relative to the wizard, it's pretty meh.

Now try the other classes. Cleric on utility easily beats pre-Tasha's sorcerer, fighter, barbarian, pre-Tasha's ranger, paladin. And challenges both warlock and druid. Yes, I left the rogue out of the comparison because what it does is so different.

Wizards are the absolute best at utility. No one disputes that. We're just asking why you want to make blast wizards crap and to buff one of the most self sufficient and all round powerful classes in the game

Please do tell me what you think their "excellent baseline damage" is? Because in my experience a chunk of their baseline damage (which was never great) just got heavily nerfed (Spirit Guardians + Spiritual Weapon). Which itself was boring but at least it was fairly consistently OK. Now it's not even that.

Baseline = not spending a levelled spell or other limited use ability. They get the extra d8, putting them ahead of wizards, sorcerers, bards, and druids even if not warlocks or martials.

Short version: before pushing for buffs you need a better argument than "One of the strongest classes in the game isn't as good as the wizard at the wizard's area of expertise".

 

[Mistwell]

Now try the other classes.

Do you really think I have not? I mean, you and I have discussed played 5e for a decade now, dating back to the early playtest. Did you really think, what, challenging my experience with 5e was the right challenge to be making in this thread? Because if so, this discussion probably needs to end.

 

[Maxperson]

Constantly muttering prayers while holding a rosary is absolutely not suspect. Having a religious friend besides you isn't either. In both these cases we don't mind in real life. The only thing that might give it is if your religious friend is knotted to you by a 10' rope.

If you're muttering, the spell automatically fails.

"Most spells require the chanting of mystic words. The words themselves aren't the source of the spell's power; rather, the particular combination of sounds, with specific pitch and resonance, sets the threads of magic in motion."

That's very audible and clear, so if the Count can understand the language that the cleric is praying in, he's going to understand, "Oh highest god, help my friend persuade the count to do as we wish." or whatever the prayer is.