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

Chaosmancer

Legend
Unless you're psychic, you have no idea when they are at 60-90 hit points if they will ever hit 7, so it would be dumb to cast the spell then. You do it when it could actually make the difference.

So, it would be stupid to heal them 10 hp, when they have lost 10 hp, because you cannot know if you will hit that precise point where the impossible to predict math will land them in the sweet spot where 10 hp will make a difference... but if you wait too long, they will be low enough, from those impossible to predict random numbers, that your healing would be worthless.

And this ISN'T a reason that healing in 5e is terrible and needs a massive buff?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


You can't introduce a spell that is so much more powerful than anything else at that level if you need rules lawyery knowledge to do so.

So, while I don't disagree that such a spell could exist, I think it was the wrong time and the wrong way to do so.

I think this spell was thought to use a reaction and shortly bedore release they thought: ah, the reaction is unneeded...
the nerf was too harsh IMO.

So the paladin aura of healing is a straight forward spell. No rules lawyering needed. No problem.

Now might be the time to reintroduce such a spell. But please, in a way that does not use dumb mechanics. The new and improved prayer of healing is a spell along that line of thought. I am looking forward to the primal version of this.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
So, it would be stupid to heal them 10 hp, when they have lost 10 hp, because you cannot know if you will hit that precise point where the impossible to predict math will land them in the sweet spot where 10 hp will make a difference... but if you wait too long, they will be low enough, from those impossible to predict random numbers, that your healing would be worthless.

And this ISN'T a reason that healing in 5e is terrible and needs a massive buff?
The bolded is unknown. It would be stupid to heal them when they are at 60 hit points, because they might not take any more damage at all. It's not stupid to heal them at 10 hit points, because adding 8 hit points will often make the difference between going down to one hit and not going down to that one hit.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
You can't introduce a spell that is so much more powerful than anything else at that level if you need rules lawyery knowledge to do so.

Um... all designers have "rules lawyery" knowledge about the design they made. So... huh? Or are you saying that you can't introduce a spell of the appropriate power level if X percentage of players aren't saavy enough to realize that the other versions are incredibly weak?

I'm really not sure what this sentence is meant to convey here

So, while I don't disagree that such a spell could exist, I think it was the wrong time and the wrong way to do so.

Okay, but just because it was introduced at "the wrong time" doesn't mean it can't still be used. I'd love if all healing spells get fixed, but part of that comes from telling the company "this is what all healing spells should be" not telling them "this is too powerful compared to other healing spells, nerf it into oblivion" which is what they did.

So the paladin aura of healing is a straight forward spell. No rules lawyering needed. No problem.

There isn't any rules lawyering needed for Healing Spirit either, so I'm not getting what the problem is.

Now might be the time to reintroduce such a spell. But please, in a way that does not use dumb mechanics. The new and improved prayer of healing is a spell along that line of thought. I am looking forward to the primal version of this.

I do hope they go back to the original version of the spell for OD&D. And I do like the new prayer of healing. Though I worry, since it is now usable once per day and clerics have a higher restriction on spell choice, that it is a sign they aren't going to actually improve healing spells.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
The bolded is unknown. It would be stupid to heal them when they are at 60 hit points, because they might not take any more damage at all. It's not stupid to heal them at 10 hit points, because adding 8 hit points will often make the difference between going down to one hit and not going down to that one hit.

Unless the enemy they are fighting is a Charging Minotaur that does 22 points of Average damage, because then whether you have 10 or 18 hp doesn't make a difference. Or a Hobgoblin captain with an ally next to them who does an average of 19 damage with one of their two attack, because then if you have 10 or 18 hp it doesn't make a difference.

Now, sure, it makes a difference for something like a hook horror, who does two attacks of a 11 damage. Going from 10 to 18 means that it takes two hits to knock you out instead of one hit on you and one hit on the cleric next to you. But then if the Cleric heals you again after you go down, the Hook Horror does drop you in one hit and then hits the cleric. So the cleric spent their entire turn and a spell slot to buy you a half of a monsters turn. Is that a good trade?

And these are all CR 3 creatures. What the heck is a cleric supposed to do against more deadly threats?

Take for instance an opening move by a CR 10 Young Adult Red Dragon. They breathe fire and hit the five members of the party for 56 damage. That is 280 damage from a single, rechargable, action. What can a cleric do about that? Even healing 56 damage to a single party member is nearly impossible for them to do in a single action, the only choice I can find that covers this much damage in a single action to this many people is Mass Heal.



Now, sure, if you know the damage the enemy is dealing and if there is only a single enemy and if you get lucky in your timing, you can use a healing spell to buy one party member one extra turn. But is that really the fantasy of a healer in these games? That maybe, occasionally, they can buy a crucial second? No, no it isn't.
 


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Unless the enemy they are fighting is a Charging Minotaur that does 22 points of Average damage, because then whether you have 10 or 18 hp doesn't make a difference. Or a Hobgoblin captain with an ally next to them who does an average of 19 damage with one of their two attack, because then if you have 10 or 18 hp it doesn't make a difference.
Sure. Not in every case. Just most cases.
Now, sure, it makes a difference for something like a hook horror, who does two attacks of a 11 damage. Going from 10 to 18 means that it takes two hits to knock you out instead of one hit on you and one hit on the cleric next to you. But then if the Cleric heals you again after you go down, the Hook Horror does drop you in one hit and then hits the cleric. So the cleric spent their entire turn and a spell slot to buy you a half of a monsters turn. Is that a good trade?

And these are all CR 3 creatures. What the heck is a cleric supposed to do against more deadly threats?
Like the CR 10 Aboleth and it's 12 average damage? Or CR 5 Cambion with it's 11 average damage? Or CR 4 Chuul with it's 11 average damage? Or the CR 6 cyclops which as a giant is supposed to dish out lots of damage, but barely exceeds 18 with it's 19 average damage? Or CR 5 Barlgura with its 11 average damage? Or the CR 9 glabrezy with its 16 average damage?

18 is sufficient to give someone a decent chance of staying up against many, many things of decently high CR. And if you're that level, your heals will be better.
Take for instance an opening move by a CR 10 Young Adult Red Dragon. They breathe fire and hit the five members of the party for 56 damage. That is 280 damage from a single, rechargable, action. What can a cleric do about that? Even healing 56 damage to a single party member is nearly impossible for them to do in a single action, the only choice I can find that covers this much damage in a single action to this many people is Mass Heal.
No. We're talking hits, not specials with saves, and dragons to boot. The claw averages 15. The tail 17. The bite barely over 18 and 19 damage.

Of course you can cherry pick something that does lots of damage with a special attack. Most things do not. Besides, if you can cherry pick a CR 10 red dragon, I can cherry pick resistance spells and/or tieflings PCs that are resistant to it and make their saves, only taking 14 damage from that breath.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
I'm intrigued by the hit die activation idea. What would be the results if Cure Wounds would let the target use hit dice equal to the spell slot level?

I've written the spells this way, but I haven't had a chance to have a healer since I changed it. It feels like it is a good change just on paper though.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Sure. Not in every case. Just most cases.

Like the CR 10 Aboleth and it's 12 average damage? Or CR 5 Cambion with it's 11 average damage? Or CR 4 Chuul with it's 11 average damage? Or the CR 6 cyclops which as a giant is supposed to dish out lots of damage, but barely exceeds 18 with it's 19 average damage? Or CR 5 Barlgura with its 11 average damage? Or the CR 9 glabrezy with its 16 average damage?

18 is sufficient to give someone a decent chance of staying up against many, many things of decently high CR. And if you're that level, your heals will be better.

The Aboleth which can hit three times for 12 damage, curse you with a disease to be unable to recover hp unless underwater, which cannot be removed except by a 6th level spell? And of course, we all know Aboleths are physical threats, not like they can enslave the Fighter to carve you up for far more damage.

The Cambion, who can attack twice for 11 damage and can charm people as well.

The Chuul who can attack twice for 11 damage, and sets up for a 1 minute paralysis

The Cyclops who attacks twice for 19 damage or once for 28 damage. (BTW, hill giants do two attacks of 18)

The Barlgura who attacks once for 9 and twice for 11 damage.

The Glabrezu who can attack twice for 16 and twice for 7 (or cast a spell)


So, yes, you can cast a healing spell as your entire turn to handle between 50% to 33% of a monsters turn. But hey, that might be enough if these monsters only hit once instead of twice. Yes, Cure Wounds can be enough to stop a single attack, but when you are dealing with multi-attack and cure wounds takes an entire action, then you can't look at just the value of a single attack. I mean, you are trying to sell me that it is useful to heal from 10 to 18 hp agaisnt a monster that can casually deal 40 damage a turn. But in practice that was a waste of my action.

No. We're talking hits, not specials with saves, and dragons to boot. The claw averages 15. The tail 17. The bite barely over 18 and 19 damage.

Of course you can cherry pick something that does lots of damage with a special attack. Most things do not. Besides, if you can cherry pick a CR 10 red dragon, I can cherry pick resistance spells and/or tieflings PCs that are resistant to it and make their saves, only taking 14 damage from that breath.

No, we are talking healing. And I'm not cherry picking. I talked earlier about how cure wounds can't counter burning hands.

Also, again, stop being disingenuous with the monster's abilities. Cure wounds takes your entire action. That dragon doesn't do 15 damage (it also doesn't have a tail attack at all). Instead it does three attacks for 13+13+20 or 46 damage. Sure, you could cast a 2nd level cure wounds as a life cleric, healing 2d8+4+4 for 17 hp, and stop one of those attacks. But you only have three 2nd level spells.

Meaning that if you did that every round, you will prevent a single round of damage from the dragon, who isn't using their iconic ability. You can heal 51 damage, and in that time the dragon will dish out 138 damage. And even if you increase that to using all of your 3rd level spells, instead of your second, you are only healing 67.5 which is just barely half of the damage being dished out. For three beefy spell slots, from the "best" healer in the entire game.


Also, we are not talking about Tieflings or Genasi, because we aren't talking about resistance. If I need to have resistance to the damage for the healer to be able to keep up, then the healer can't keep up. And while I may be in an all tiefling party that all make their saves, I could also be in an all-dwarf party that fails their saves. Or an all half-dryad homebrew party that takes double damage because of vulnerability. Once we go that route, we are going to get uselessly bogged in the minutia that frankly does not matter.
 

Clint_L

Hero
And yet, most players seem to really enjoy combat. Go figure.
Do they? I haven't seen any numbers on this, so I have no idea. In my games, players seem to feel otherwise - that it is sometimes fun and produces memorable moments, but most of the good times come from doing almost anything but combat. I agree that you need it to add consequences and danger to the story, but geez do I wish it was more streamlined and took half as long.

Going to the discussion of healing, if you buff healing you really alter the base design of the game, and would have to revamp a ton of other stuff. 5e combat is already extremely low stakes. If you buffed healing and left everything else as is, there would either be almost no risk, or DMs would have to offset the increased healing with harder hitting foes, so it would still be a wash. Or you could balance it by raising creature DPS but again...it's a wash. But you can't just buff healing and not expect anything else to change.
 

Remove ads

Top