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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Well, unless they're an Arcana Cleric. Or a High Elf.
I don't see how either of those make a difference to which books can be used for comparisons. If he's excluding optional rules, then since all splat books are optional they have to be excluded. Booming blade is not included in the PHB, so can't be used in any way.

High elves have to pick from PHB cantrips and arcana clerics can't be used at all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

James Gasik

We don't talk about Pun-Pun
Supporter
I don't see how either of those make a difference to which books can be used for comparisons. If he's excluding optional rules, then since all splat books are optional they have to be excluded. Booming blade is not included in the PHB, so can't be used in any way.

High elves have to pick from PHB cantrips and arcana clerics can't be used at all.
Ok, it's just you said we had to assume Feats, and there are ways other than Feats to get those abilities. I haven't been fully engaged in the debate, so I missed the part where optional and non-core rules were being excluded from it.

I never made any secret about the fact that I hate the current healing paradigm and wish healing spells had more oomph, and never understood why offense =/= defense. Pathfinder 1e had this same disparity baked into the game, as they claimed that if defense was better than offense, combats would drag on and become (more) boring.

This however, never seems to prevent monsters from having a plethora of defensive abilities in order to prevent players from killing them quickly, of course.

As much as it would be nice to reexamine the entire paradigm, I highly doubt that anything like that will come from WotC. And, to my dismay, I must admit there is probably a good reason why it works the way it does now.

If casting big heals was optimal, characters who could cast them would feel pressure to do so, and we'd be right back to AD&D, where all your first level spells had to be "cure light wounds" and you'd never be able to cast anything more interesting.

Which was a miserable experience, so if the current state of the game is a necessary evil in order to let people play Clerics, Bards, and Druids and have more options than be walking band-aid dispensers, then so be it, I guess.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Ok, it's just you said we had to assume Feats, and there are ways other than Feats to get those abilities. I haven't been fully engaged in the debate, so I missed the part where optional and non-core rules were being excluded from it.
You didn't understand, probably because no one in their right mind would follow his and my conversation closely the way it's broken up. He said that fighters could not use feats when he started comparing how much damage the two classes could put out. Presumably because feats are optional and can't be assumed to be in play. That lead to me saying...

"You also can't use Booming Blade unless fighters can use feats. All books outside of core are also optional and can't be assumed to be in play."

...because booming blade is just as optional as fighter feats are. :)
I never made any secret about the fact that I hate the current healing paradigm and wish healing spells had more oomph, and never understood why offense =/= defense. Pathfinder 1e had this same disparity baked into the game, as they claimed that if defense was better than offense, combats would drag on and become (more) boring.
Healing was sacrificed on the altar of balance around the adventuring day and resource attrition. If it had the oomph of yesteryear, it would unbalance things.

I also wish it had more oomph, but that goes hand in hand with my intense dislike of balance around the adventuring day. I wish they had never used that metric to balance the game around.
This however, never seems to prevent monsters from having a plethora of defensive abilities in order to prevent players from killing them quickly, of course.

As much as it would be nice to reexamine the entire paradigm, I highly doubt that anything like that will come from WotC. And, to my dismay, I must admit there is probably a good reason why it works the way it does now.
Yep.
If casting big heals was optimal, characters who could cast them would feel pressure to do so, and we'd be right back to AD&D, where all your first level spells had to be "cure light wounds" and you'd never be able to cast anything more interesting.
I hated that. I actually rebelled against it when 2e came out. I told the other players straight up that my cleric was going to be a Cleric of War or Magic or whatever and would not have much healing as I would be focused on his calling when it came to spell selection. Then I let them know that if they wanted a dedicated healer, someone else would need to make one. We had like 6 or 7 of us, so 2 clerics was easily doable.
Which was a miserable experience, so if the current state of the game is a necessary evil in order to let people play Clerics, Bards, and Druids and have more options than be walking band-aid dispensers, then so be it, I guess.
I don't think it is. I think there are ways to design the game such that spells, including healing, have more oomph without 1) sending us back to the caster dominance of yore, and 2) setting clerics up to be heal bots.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
It adds up and healing spirit scales very well with spell level. Use it as a 3rd level spell and you heal 2d6 per turn (like aura of vitality), which is quite good if you can use it over 3 turns or more (after 3 turns you have negated a whole fireball of damage with a single cast of a 3rd level spell).
Seems about right for me. And again, powerful bursts of healing (a little bit buffed cure wounds) should also be viable (3d8+4) is lousy...

It does scale very well. I'd have to get to using it to determine whether or not the static area and clumping is as bad as I fear I guess.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
They have the numbers. You don't. You just have feelings that something is off, and feelings aren't a reason to change things.

I don't have numbers? Where did all my numbers come from then? I mean, sure, I felt something was off. Then I looked at the numbers. Then I checked with other people and sought other opinions, then I looked at the numbers AGAIN... I mean, I'm no paid researcher, but I really think declaring I'm basing everything off feelings when I'm showing my work is pretty lazy for a counter-argument. Especially for someone who hasn't done more than just shout I'm wrong without backing it up.

Right. One(mine) actually deals with balance. The other(yours) is a white room isolated comparison that does not. Your minor healing spell is not intended to counteract what you are comparing it to. If it was, it would.

So, would your claim be that Wizards has NEVER overvalued something and NEVER made a mistake? I certainly would never make that claim, there is after all a trivially easy thing to point to that shows that they DO overestimate, and reams and reams of things to point towards that show that they make mistakes.

And yours doesn't deal with actual balance, yours deals with the feeling that WoTC totally got it right the first time, despite any evidence to the contrary.

Data when used incorrectly isn't anything at all. Basically you have a poll and are spinning the numbers to suit your desires, but WotC has the actual play balance to consider, not your feelings on the matter.

And you still aren't doing anything to disprove me, just shouting that I'm using my feelings, despite all the facts I keep using. Getting kind of sad.


You haven't provided a shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with balance. You've taken two isolated things and compared them in a white room and declared that something is ubalanced based on a white room situation that doesn't deal with entire party vs. adventuring day balance.

And you keep asserting that I need to consider the entire party... but refuse to acknowledge that you can't predict an entire party. You are demanding the impossible, then asserting that Wizards must have done it right the first time, because... reasons! White Rooms! Feelings!

You want to prove yourself correct? Then you need to show your work, not just insist my work is bad because I'm only looking at healing abilities vs damage.

Um, no. That was entirely you. I never, ever made that claim. If you wanted to actually get my claim correct(and you don't), you would have compared all of the abilities available to one 11th level group to another, and not deliberately twisted what I said compared a 1st level ability to a 6th level ability in a white room again and declared it to be what I am saying.

I think your deliberate Strawman is ridiculous, too. We are in agreement!

I am comparing the majority of the abilities together. Damage, spells, hp, AC, class abilities. Sure, I haven't listed every single thing in a 20 page report, but I certainly have done more than compare a scaling healing to a 6th level spell. Which I did because you claimed that the damage mitigation abilities of ANY two parties would be the same. Fighters get heavy armor, so do clerics, fighter damage, cleric damage, fighter ability to restore hp, cleric ability to restore hp. What more should I list for you to demonstrate that the fighter has less damage mitigation?

Clerics don't have all of their spells for combat. A group of 4 clerics will need use a good percentage of them for utility during the adventuring day, cratering their ability to dish out damage in combat. Again, you are white rooming things by incorrectly declaring that clerics will have all of their spells to use in battle.

Why would they need to use them during the adventuring day? Is the DM forcing them to use spells against their will? After all, it isn't like clerics have a massive amount of utility that they are required to use.

And if the Clerics absolutely MUST use their spells to overcome the utility challenges of the adventuring day... aren't the fighter's just stuck and unable to progress? I mean, they get zero spells for utility. And if they are facing the same challenges... then the clerics don't need their spells for utility.

And if they do so, they're gimping themselves in utility outside of combat and will suffer for it. AND they have zeroed out their 3rd and 4th level slots in 3 out of 6-8 encounters for that adventuring day. Now they have 4 1st level spells, 3 2nd, 2 5th and 1 6th to divide up over 3-5 more encounters AND all utility for the day.

Yes, you have accurately noted the usage of resources. Good job. Now tell me why I should care about this theoretical utility that you are making up? Especially since they still have many spell slots.

You also can't use Booming Blade unless fighters can use feats. All books outside of core are also optional and can't be assumed to be in play.

Why not? I told you that was exactly what I was going to do. Didn't you read my post? I literally stated this "Because if you take the correct combination of abilities, the clerics can deal 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis every round for a fight, while still having the Heal spells, so is that really balanced against 4 fighters with no feats? "

And your response was the following.
Yes, because "for a fight" doesn't equal "for every fight" like fighters maintain.

I asked "Is that really balanced" and you said "Yes". You said it was balanced. Now suddenly, after I demonstrate the reality of that, you claim that it is unfair to not give the fighter's feats, and I can't use non-PHB materials and and and.... funny how quickly "Yes!" turned into "Wait, no, you can't do that." Maybe you should have either read a bit more closely, or considered your answer more.

They're going to get 3-5 more, so...

So you ARE white rooming this into a situation that will never occur in actual game play and assuming that clerics only ever cast spells in combat.

Now try down 1/3 to half your spells AND having to heal yourselves with at least some of those slots instead of using all your slots for offense. You know, like actually happens in real world game play and not fake white room situations where spellcasters have 100% of their slots for utility and 100% of their slots for combat in order to show how they are better than squares both in and out of combat.

You said Fighter's cannot fall behind in damage. I'm demonstrating that is false. You also keep harping on about this utility that I am required to spend spells on, but again, what utility am I required to use spells on? Demonstrate how I am required to spend half of Team Cleric's spells on utility spells, while Team Fighter can solve these same challenges without spells. You can't just assert yourself to be correct, you have to provide evidence.

Wait! You've used up every 2nd, 3rd, and 4th level spell on offense, then said you have 2 5th and a 6th for the last fight. Where are you getting this mythical clerical healing from? They have no slots to use any. You have spare the dying to stabilize the clerics that go unconscious and that's it.


Unless of course you want to take back a considerable amount of damage output so that you can actually heal and a considerable amount more for the utility you need to use out of combat in an adventuring day, in which case fighters action surge past you.

I have the 6th level slots. You know, the four 6th level slots that a team of four clerics would have is they had 6th level slots left? That's where that 70 came from. I compared the cleric's casting Heal, like I said, and having four of them becuase they are a team of clerics, like I said, against the Fighter's getting to use second wind.... like I said.

You are really making me question if you understood the premise.

Since you think that clerics have 100% of their spells for combat, 100% for healing, and 100% for utility, you clearly don't.

I'm also, given how you have twisted my claims and how you've used more than 100% of clerical spell slots, not going to trust your numbers as to how much fighters can dish out per fight.

What are you talking about? Do I need to take back that congratulations I gave before for accurately counting resources?

Team Cleric has each cleric start with 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 3 third level, 3 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level.

If they cast Spiritual Weapon at 4th and Spirit Guardians at 3rd, three times each, then they have 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.

Then, if they cast Spiritual Weapon three times at 2nd, then they have 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.

Then, if they cast Heal as a 6th level, each member has 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 0 sixth level spells.


So... I haven't even used 100% of their spells, let alone 300% of them. And, I used the one spell on healing to demonstrate that the Heal Spell once is more healing than the fighter over the adventuring day, unless you get three short rests. I think your feelings are the ones that are suspect, since you are just ranting about me using 100% of the spells for healing (one spell) and 100% of the spells for utility (still not demonstrated) when that is clearly not what I demonstrated.
 

Chaosmancer

Legend
Ok, it's just you said we had to assume Feats, and there are ways other than Feats to get those abilities. I haven't been fully engaged in the debate, so I missed the part where optional and non-core rules were being excluded from it.

They weren't. Until Max demanded I exclude them for including them in my point.

This however, never seems to prevent monsters from having a plethora of defensive abilities in order to prevent players from killing them quickly, of course.

Yeah, this was another thing I was considering recently. You never see monsters spending their turns healing other monsters. Or if you do, it is incredibly rare. I was recently thinking about a fight for my players where I would do this, and wondering if they'd call me a cheater for bringing back "dead" monsters who were actually just dying and could be healed.

As much as it would be nice to reexamine the entire paradigm, I highly doubt that anything like that will come from WotC. And, to my dismay, I must admit there is probably a good reason why it works the way it does now.

If casting big heals was optimal, characters who could cast them would feel pressure to do so, and we'd be right back to AD&D, where all your first level spells had to be "cure light wounds" and you'd never be able to cast anything more interesting.

Which was a miserable experience, so if the current state of the game is a necessary evil in order to let people play Clerics, Bards, and Druids and have more options than be walking band-aid dispensers, then so be it, I guess.

Now, I will agree with this. But this is actually where the idea of the party resources DOES come into play. If there are multiple sources of healing, then even if the cleric or druid does amazing healing, this isn't all they have to do.

But right now, I think we've swung too far the other way, where players rarely use healing abilities unless they don't understand the game math. The most I ever saw Cure Wounds used was a cleric and a druid who kept casting it on each other in the middle of a combat. And, as the DM, I wanted to scream at them, because they weren't recovering more than I was dishing out, and they were just wasting spell slots and their turns, forcing the rest of the party to pick up the slack. But they just frankly did not understand the math and assumed that the Cure Wounds spell was a viable choice to use every round after getting hit. And I know they didn't understand it, because they were shocked to realize they were running low on hp after the fight.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I don't have numbers? Where did all my numbers come from then? I mean, sure, I felt something was off. Then I looked at the numbers. Then I checked with other people and sought other opinions, then I looked at the numbers AGAIN... I mean, I'm no paid researcher, but I really think declaring I'm basing everything off feelings when I'm showing my work is pretty lazy for a counter-argument. Especially for someone who hasn't done more than just shout I'm wrong without backing it up.
Oka then, show us WotC's secret balance numbers that you have access to and are using to base your complaint on.
And you keep asserting that I need to consider the entire party... but refuse to acknowledge that you can't predict an entire party.
There's a reason I say that balance is a range. You'd know that if you listened to understand instead of listening to respond.
I am comparing the majority of the abilities together. Damage, spells, hp, AC, class abilities. Sure, I haven't listed every single thing in a 20 page report, but I certainly have done more than compare a scaling healing to a 6th level spell. Which I did because you claimed that the damage mitigation abilities of ANY two parties would be the same. Fighters get heavy armor, so do clerics, fighter damage, cleric damage, fighter ability to restore hp, cleric ability to restore hp. What more should I list for you to demonstrate that the fighter has less damage mitigation?
Mitigation is one piece of the puzzle, which is your failure. You don't seem to grasp that these abilities are part of a whole and the whole of not only the PC, but the whole party over the entire adventuring day is what the game is balanced around.
Why would they need to use them during the adventuring day? Is the DM forcing them to use spells against their will? After all, it isn't like clerics have a massive amount of utility that they are required to use.
Maybe you haven't played the game before and don't understand that utility spells get used during the day.
And if the Clerics absolutely MUST use their spells to overcome the utility challenges of the adventuring day... aren't the fighter's just stuck and unable to progress? I mean, they get zero spells for utility. And if they are facing the same challenges... then the clerics don't need their spells for utility.
They're going to use them. As for fighters and utility, perhaps you missed in all your ignoring of what I have been saying that fighters need help in the other two pillars.
Yes, you have accurately noted the usage of resources. Good job. Now tell me why I should care about this theoretical utility that you are making up? Especially since they still have many spell slots.
Many? You have literally used up every 2nd to 5th level slot for your combat damage. They only have four 1st level spells and one 6th level spell for those "many" slots.
I asked "Is that really balanced" and you said "Yes". You said it was balanced. Now suddenly, after I demonstrate the reality of that, you claim that it is unfair to not give the fighter's feats, and I can't use non-PHB materials and and and.... funny how quickly "Yes!" turned into "Wait, no, you can't do that." Maybe you should have either read a bit more closely, or considered your answer more.
You haven't demonstrated any such thing. You incorrectly used more slots than clerics have to attack in every combat, while at the same time using those same slots for healing, and ignoring the fact that clerics will use spells for utility. 1+1 doesn't equal 7. You don't get to use more slots than you have.
Team Cleric has each cleric start with 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 3 third level, 3 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level.

If they cast Spiritual Weapon at 4th and Spirit Guardians at 3rd, three times each, then they have 4 first level spells, 3 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.

Then, if they cast Spiritual Weapon three times at 2nd, then they have 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 1 sixth level spell.

Then, if they cast Heal as a 6th level, each member has 4 first level spells, 0 second level, 0 third level, 0 fourth level, 2 fifth level, and 0 sixth level spells.
Oh, so now your statement that they used their 5th level spells in the 7th fight is false? And what about an 8th? And the utility that will be used despite your protestations?

Oh, and only having heal available is going to be death for those clerics. The way combats work they will be brought low or knocked out in multiple encounters. More often than 4 heal spells can handle.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
They weren't. Until Max demanded I exclude them for including them in my point.
You excluded feats which are the same as non-core rules. Either optional rules are usable or they aren't. You don't get to use some optional rules and then exclude the other side from also using them.
 

It does scale very well. I'd have to get to using it to determine whether or not the static area and clumping is as bad as I fear I guess.

Just to clarify, I would allow the caster to move the spirit as a bonus action. Probably I''d tie that heal to the bonus action as well, now that twf as a bonus action is probably gone.
 


Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top