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

[Chaosmancer]

Those design things don't include the hidden math. They just all fit. You could not for instance, complete invent a new ability and rate it without having a very good chance of getting it wrong. They would be very unlikely to get it wrong, because they have the hidden stuff.

So, when on page 274 when they show a chart that says a CR 7 monster should deal 45 to 50 damage per round, and then further on pages 277 and 278 they talk about how to split that damage, how to deal with things like aura. Heck, they directly give an equation for the first three rounds of combat.

All of that is inaccurate because they didn't give us the hidden math? What hidden math?

Or what about on pgs 283 to 284 where they talk about how to create spells, and they give a chart on spell damage per level, and then state that you can use that same chart for healing spells? Am I supposed to believe that they gave DMs false information that would be wrong because there is "hidden math" that they refused to share?

Better yet, how do you know that this is the wrong information and the real numbers are using hidden math you aren't allowed to see?

Fine. Since you want to be pedantic about it. Clerics have channel divinity and domain abilities. Fighters have fighting styles, feats(since you insist on optional rules being usable), indomitable, etc.

Not all Channel Divinities are applicable, I figured they would skew the results to only use the ones that were. After all, Turn Undead is either completely combat ending, or useless.

I've accounted for Fighting Styles, as would be obvious from my numbers.

The fighter team was specifically stated before my numbers to not use feats. You agree to that, no use calling foul now.

Indomitable only works on saves, it does nothing else. There is no indication that any saves were required to be made, so no indication that Indomitable would alter the results.

Ect isn't an ability. It is a way of saying "and on and on" but it is interesting you chose to use it there, because for the Fighter there is no "and on and on". They don't get any new abilities as a base class after indomitable.

I mention base class, and swing back to subclasses for clerics now, because yes, I didn't account for them. Doing so offers a wide range of different options. For Example, would you have been okay with me comparing a team of 4 twilight clerics to a team of Champion fighters? Therefore, it was easier and faster to use the theory of Ceteris Paribus in regards to subclasses.

Why not? Clerics have those.

Sure they have those, but my analysis only involved Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. I mean, you could argue their damage goes down if they use Hold Person and then get multiple crits on an unmoving and non-threat target, but that requires many additional levels of math that really weren't relevant.

3 action surges, since it's not hard to have at least 2 short rests.

Yes, I'm aware that over six fights, with two short rests, it would be three action surges. That's how "one round of combat" could equal "half of a combat". I had not considered the effect on Action surge, but if I counted it as a full combat, then by fight #6 the fighter could actually pull a small bit ahead.

If I've said something is too powerful, that's purely my opinion about how it works in my game. Not a fact. And people here have said that it works just fine and isn't overpowered in their games.

Having the opinion is fine. Change the healing spell for your game and be done with it, just like I nerf or ban things I think are too powerful or disrupt the campaign.

So... because I want to support my opinion with facts, demonstrating that there is a solid basis of reasoning behind my calls for changing the game.... that's bad? You don't like that I don't just say "I don't like this" and instead say "I don't like this, because it leads to this, and here is some math to show I'm not just making up a false problem?"

Well... tough naughty word? I like grounding my opinions in a basis of logic and facts, that is never going to change, and I don't care that you don't like it. After all, the opinion part of this is just "this is bad". It isn't an opinon that 1st level cure wounds takes an action and heals 1d8+spellcasting modifier. Nor is it an opinion that the healing increases by 1d8 per spell level over 1st. Just like it isn't an opinion that a wyvern's stinger does an average of 35 damage, nor an opinion that it can do that and bite for another average of 11 damage. It isn't an opinion that CR 6 means it should be faced by parties around level 6, and that therefore a full-caster who has prepared Cure Wounds has their highest slot as likely a 3rd level slot (4th if they are 7th, but CR 6 is targeted at level 6). It would therefore also not be an opinion that casting a 3rd level Cure wounds and healing 3d8+mod, or an average of 13.5+mod, is less than 35 damage. It is even less than the on a save version, which is 23 damage. And increasing it to 4th level slots still leaves 18+mod, which is still less than 35 and less than 23, assuming that a 7th level character doesn't have a 20 in their spellcasting stat.

The opinion comes in with "this disparity is bad". We can debate circles about that opinion. But I am basing that opinion in facts that demonstrate the disparity as also a fact.

That's horribly wrong. Just because you can suffer through something, taking lots of damage or having to go around obstacles, doesn't mean that clerics who can avoid issues aren't better at it.

I'll let you look at some of the fighter threads to see exactly how they lag in social and exploration.

What does that have to do with anything? You are completely misunderstanding the point.

The point is, if Fighters can get through it by going around the obstacle.... a cleric can just go around the obstacle. Sure, a cleric may have the potential to do something better, but that doesn't mean they are required to do so. Whatever Team Fighter is doing, Team Cleric can do the EXACT SAME THING, because fighters have nothing but skills and clever play to deal with social and exploration challenges. I'm not saying that clerics don't have options, I'm saying that part of having options is choosing to do what the fighter does.

No. I'm saying that some will be used, not that they are required. That's how players work. If there's a problem and they have a utility spell that will solve it, it will almost always be cast.

"Almost always" isn't "always". They can choose NOT to cast it. You insisting that I have to dedicate slots to doing something that someone MIGHT choose to do is inane. Especially since these seem to be schrondinger's problems, that only exist long enough to force cleric spell usage but then have no effect on team fighter.

I love how you ignores the "or" portion of that statement in order to twist my words into "dropping people to 0 hp every single fight."

I love how you can't see two sentences as tackling two different ideas. To break this down further and help you understand what you are reading.

No, most fights do not see [most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points]. If you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight (Note here that I am addressing only half of your statement, not both halves), you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't [warping things by dropping people to 0 hp every fight], provide evidence, not just empty assertions.


But sure, if you would instead like to prove that you just drop people to "very low hit points" every single fight instead of to zero, feel free. But somehow I get the feeling that you will continue to ignore my calls for you to actually back up your claims, like you have for the last dozen or so pages of this discussion.

The champion is not underpowered. It is the weakest of the fighter classes.

Okay, prove it. That's what I asked.

Battle Masters have more battle utility through their maneuvers and also deal more damage. I find it convenient that you went out of your way to say no feats and use the weakest fighter in order to try and show that clerics are better, and you didn't even really manage to do that.

Show me where I claimed the champion is what I was using? Also, while the battlemaster MIGHT do more damage and MIGHT have more utility, what about the Arcane Archer? The Cavelier? The Purple Dragon Knight? Even if you prove the Battle Master is stronger than the champion (facts not in evidence, you just stated it as true) that doesn't mean the champion is the weakest fighter.

But really, I see that this discussion is quickly reaching an end point, because you have trapped yourself. See below.

You don't need matching AC. The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.

How are they better off? Also, you want me to have another disparity? Interesting choice.

I'm saying that if you get to use optional rules for the clerics, the fighters get to as well.

So, at a minimum, you have admitted that parties are not balanced if one group is using feats and the other isn't. Which is interesting. Because that means that if feats are allowed (and they often are) then using a 1-handed weapon that does 1d8+mod isn't balanced, it is actually behind. Notably, you pointed out that fighters are generally closer to balanced against spellcasters using two-handed weapons and getting a +10 damage. That's what them being "better off" would mean, right?

But, that means that a "balanced" at-will attack would be closer to 2d6+10+mod, averaging 17+mod. So then... healing doesn't actually restore a single balanced at-will attack, does it? 4.5+mod isn't even close to 17+mod. So, this seems to indicate that.... I am probably on to something with healing being too weak, because attacks of 1d8+mod are seen as too weak as well.

Behind by at least 22 hit points is not comparable.

It only helps in one fight out of the 6-8 for the adventuring day. Then they die.

Interesting. So, you admit Fighter's don't have enough healing. Just, flat out.

See, a cleric would have, on average, about 80 hp by level 11. A fighter being at least 22 point higher would place them at 102. But let's give you 120 hp and make it a 40 pt disparity, double what you claimed.

Those clerics each get +70 hp from Heal, which helps them in one fight. Then they die. That puts them at 150 hp.

However... isn't 150 hp HIGHER than the fighter's 120? Ah, but I forgot second wind, of course. That gives them and extra 1d10+11 or 16.5 hp. Which is 136.5.... and still lower than 150.

Additionally, you've just said :

You don't need matching AC. The fighter is better off with a two handed weapon and great weapon master.

Lower AC means the fighter is going to get hit more often, meaning they will take MORE damage than the clerics. Additionally, all the cleric abilities I had listed can work at range. Fighter's weapons can't. Which is potentially even more damage.

So if clerics are doomed to death with only 150 hp, how can fighter's possible survive with only 136.5? And remember, this is DOUBLE the hp disparity that YOU claimed. By your own claims, the fighters die by the second fight, especially if your claim that every fight ends with multiple combatants at low hp, because Fighter's can't heal to full between fight 1 and fight 2, but the clerics can.

You've trapped yourself with your own arguments. I don't even need to do anything any more. Because if Fighters can survive 6 combats with only Second Wind and Hit Dice, then Clerics should be able to do the same with Heal and Hit Dice. But if clerics can't, then fighters can't. And if fighters can't survive until fight number 6, then they can't pull ahead and match the damage output of clerics, because that requires "going all day" which you have just made clear you don't believe is actually possible.

I guess at this point, have fun arguing with yourself, because that's who you need to disprove at this point.

 

[Maxperson]

So, when on page 274 when they show a chart that says a CR 7 monster should deal 45 to 50 damage per round, and then further on pages 277 and 278 they talk about how to split that damage, how to deal with things like aura. Heck, they directly give an equation for the first three rounds of combat.

All of that is inaccurate because they didn't give us the hidden math? What hidden math?

Or what about on pgs 283 to 284 where they talk about how to create spells, and they give a chart on spell damage per level, and then state that you can use that same chart for healing spells? Am I supposed to believe that they gave DMs false information that would be wrong because there is "hidden math" that they refused to share?

Better yet, how do you know that this is the wrong information and the real numbers are using hidden math you aren't allowed to see?

Come up with an ability not on the monster features list and you will have difficulty assigning it an effective challenge rating. They on the other hand will not have that difficulty, because they have the math that enabled them to rate the monster features.

What they've given you are tools to make a monster. They did NOT give you the math behind those tools.

Not all Channel Divinities are applicable, I figured they would skew the results to only use the ones that were. After all, Turn Undead is either completely combat ending, or useless.

All abilities are applicable, because PCs are balanced for all three pillars, not just combat.

I've accounted for Fighting Styles, as would be obvious from my numbers.

You did not. You might have chosen one style and accounted for that, but there are other styles that impact combat in different ways. Defense, great weapon fighting, etc.

The fighter team was specifically stated before my numbers to not use feats. You agree to that, no use calling foul now.

I never agreed to it. You just came up with numbers. I'm calling foul because you're cheating. You're giving your side access to optional rules to make your side's damage better, while limiting my side's access to optional rules because they would do much better with feats.

Either both have access or neither do. That's fair.

Indomitable only works on saves, it does nothing else. There is no indication that any saves were required to be made, so no indication that Indomitable would alter the results.

Right, because you never have to make saves in combat. And I'd really like to know how often you go through 6-8 fights at 11th level without anyone having to make a save.

Ect isn't an ability. It is a way of saying "and on and on" but it is interesting you chose to use it there, because for the Fighter there is no "and on and on". They don't get any new abilities as a base class after indomitable.

There are many other things for fighters. It depends on the subclass. Samurai have some good ones. As do Battle Masters. It's telling that you chose the well known weakest subclass to test against your clerics.

I mention base class, and swing back to subclasses for clerics now, because yes, I didn't account for them. Doing so offers a wide range of different options. For Example, would you have been okay with me comparing a team of 4 twilight clerics to a team of Champion fighters?

Choosing 4 of the same subclass against 4 of another subclass is just more white room nonsense. It's time to come out of the white room and try to see how things would work in a real game situation with all of the variables involved as they would be in a real game.

Sure they have those, but my analysis only involved Spiritual Weapon and Spirit Guardians. I mean, you could argue their damage goes down if they use Hold Person and then get multiple crits on an unmoving and non-threat target, but that requires many additional levels of math that really weren't relevant.

It's all relevant.

Yes, I'm aware that over six fights, with two short rests, it would be three action surges. That's how "one round of combat" could equal "half of a combat". I had not considered the effect on Action surge, but if I counted it as a full combat, then by fight #6 the fighter could actually pull a small bit ahead.

And with the weakest subclass. Imagine if you had actually picked a good fighter subclass.

So... because I want to support my opinion with facts, demonstrating that there is a solid basis of reasoning behind my calls for changing the game.... that's bad? You don't like that I don't just say "I don't like this" and instead say "I don't like this, because it leads to this, and here is some math to show I'm not just making up a false problem?"

The numbers don't really matter. All they do is support your feelings, not prove some sort of objective problem. You're saying, "I think this is over/under powered because of X numbers" and those X numbers won't be over/under powered for other people. You can throw them in if you like, but they aren't relevant to an opinion like this.

It isn't an opinon that 1st level cure wounds takes an action and heals 1d8+spellcasting modifier.

Correct.

Nor is it an opinion that the healing increases by 1d8 per spell level over 1st.

Correct.

The opinion is that the healing should counter damage of the same level when you don't have the math behind it. That's just your feelings.

The opinion comes in with "this disparity is bad". We can debate circles about that opinion. But I am basing that opinion in facts that demonstrate the disparity as also a fact.

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that it's an issue or not balanced when looked at in the totality of the 4 PCs and all of their abilities vs. the monsters.

The point is, if Fighters can get through it by going around the obstacle.... a cleric can just go around the obstacle. Sure, a cleric may have the potential to do something better, but that doesn't mean they are required to do so. Whatever Team Fighter is doing, Team Cleric can do the EXACT SAME THING, because fighters have nothing but skills and clever play to deal with social and exploration challenges. I'm not saying that clerics don't have options, I'm saying that part of having options is choosing to do what the fighter does.



"Almost always" isn't "always". They can choose NOT to cast it. You insisting that I have to dedicate slots to doing something that someone MIGHT choose to do is inane. Especially since these seem to be schrondinger's problems, that only exist long enough to force cleric spell usage but then have no effect on team fighter.

You are violating Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that the players will be players and use utility to make the obstacles easier. Trying to claim that you will have 100% of your slots for combat since that might happen to a group once in a blue moon fails on its face. You don't design or argue around corner cases.

No, most fights do not see [most combats see combatants go unconscious or very low in hit points]. If you are dropping people to 0 hp every single fight (Note here that I am addressing only half of your statement, not both halves), you have warped things. If you would like to prove that you aren't [warping things by dropping people to 0 hp every fight], provide evidence, not just empty assertions.

Why would I try and disprove a Strawman? You admit to dropping half of what I said and since I didn't say I do only the half you are using, I'm under no obligation to prove or disprove something that I don't do and never said that I did.

Show me where I claimed the champion is what I was using? Also, while the battlemaster MIGHT do more damage and MIGHT have more utility, what about the Arcane Archer? The Cavelier? The Purple Dragon Knight? Even if you prove the Battle Master is stronger than the champion (facts not in evidence, you just stated it as true) that doesn't mean the champion is the weakest fighter.

I refer you to the myriad of fighter threads on the forum for why the champion is the weakest. As for you using the champion, it's the subclass with the most stability in damage for you to calculate from.

What subclass did you use?

But really, I see that this discussion is quickly reaching an end point, because you have trapped yourself. See below.

Good thing we're discussing clerics. I use find traps as a utility spell and avoid the trap!!!

How are they better off? Also, you want me to have another disparity? Interesting choice.

How are they better off dishing out a ton more damage and ending fights much sooner while not sacrificing much AC?

So, at a minimum, you have admitted that parties are not balanced if one group is using feats and the other isn't. Which is interesting. Because that means that if feats are allowed (and they often are) then using a 1-handed weapon that does 1d8+mod isn't balanced, it is actually behind. Notably, you pointed out that fighters are generally closer to balanced against spellcasters using two-handed weapons and getting a +10 damage. That's what them being "better off" would mean, right?

You've already demonstrated that fighters of the weakest(or one of the weakest) subclasses pull ahead of your clerics in the 6th fight of a 6-8 encounter adventuring day. That means that they are better in all adventuring days with 6-8 fights........................without feats. Feats just make them better, just as your optional cantrip makes your clerics better. Of course, get rid of the optional cantrip and your clerics don't do as much damage, so the fighters without feats are even better at the those 6-8 fights.

But, that means that a "balanced" at-will attack would be closer to 2d6+10+mod, averaging 17+mod. So then... healing doesn't actually restore a single balanced at-will attack, does it? 4.5+mod isn't even close to 17+mod. So, this seems to indicate that.... I am probably on to something with healing being too weak, because attacks of 1d8+mod are seen as too weak as well.

No. It indicates that healing is not intended to be used in that fashion. It's primarily a whack-a-mole resource in combat.

See, a cleric would have, on average, about 80 hp by level 11. A fighter being at least 22 point higher would place them at 102. But let's give you 120 hp and make it a 40 pt disparity, double what you claimed.

Those clerics each get +70 hp from Heal, which helps them in one fight. Then they die. That puts them at 150 hp.

However... isn't 150 hp HIGHER than the fighter's 120? Ah, but I forgot second wind, of course. That gives them and extra 1d10+11 or 16.5 hp. Which is 136.5.... and still lower than 150.

In your white room, sure. In an actual game battle the fighters with their two handed weapons and feats drop those monsters more quickly and don't need nearly as much healing as the clerics do.

You've trapped yourself with your own arguments. I don't even need to do anything any more. Because if Fighters can survive 6 combats with only Second Wind and Hit Dice, then Clerics should be able to do the same with Heal and Hit Dice. But if clerics can't, then fighters can't. And if fighters can't survive until fight number 6, then they can't pull ahead and match the damage output of clerics, because that requires "going all day" which you have just made clear you don't believe is actually possible.

And my find traps spell worked and I avoided the "trap!" Mostly because it didn't exist due to being another white room construction of yours.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Come up with an ability not on the monster features list and you will have difficulty assigning it an effective challenge rating. They on the other hand will not have that difficulty, because they have the math that enabled them to rate the monster features.

Citation Needed.

What they've given you are tools to make a monster. They did NOT give you the math behind those tools.

Yes they did. Explicitly.

All abilities are applicable, because PCs are balanced for all three pillars, not just combat.

How applicable is Turn Undead in an adventuring day not featuring undead?

You did not. You might have chosen one style and accounted for that, but there are other styles that impact combat in different ways. Defense, great weapon fighting, etc.

So I have to analyze every single fighting style to be able to decide if Fighters can heal as much as Clerics? Can't just do one, and assume each style is balanced against the others, I need to do a separate analysis for all of them.

I call BS. That is just a smokescreen to demand I shut up because I haven't hit an arbitrary amount of work.

I never agreed to it. You just came up with numbers. I'm calling foul because you're cheating. You're giving your side access to optional rules to make your side's damage better, while limiting my side's access to optional rules because they would do much better with feats.

Either both have access or neither do. That's fair.

You did agree. Right here.

So, 4 second winds is equal the ability to cast the Heal Spell 4 times? 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?

Or, and this might be a little out there, they don't actually consider every possible scenario and balance based on the consideration that any weak ability in the party will be paired with a stronger ability used by a different party member. Because that's stupid.

Yes, because "for a fight" doesn't equal "for every fight" like fighters maintain. Fighters aren't behind in damage output. They're behind in the other two pillars.

So, I will take this as an admission that the inclusion of feats is what ACTUALLY balances things, and that healing is too weak.

Right, because you never have to make saves in combat. And I'd really like to know how often you go through 6-8 fights at 11th level without anyone having to make a save.

Save against what? I don't NEED to use monsters that rely on saves. Again, you make assertions that my analysis is bad because I MUST include something that I am actually not required to use. Sure, maybe I will use things that use saves, maybe I won't. But that doesn't speak to anything beyond the ability to remake a save being good.

There are many other things for fighters. It depends on the subclass. Samurai have some good ones. As do Battle Masters. It's telling that you chose the well known weakest subclass to test against your clerics.

This is why I get so immensely angry talking to you. Did you even read what I said? Obviously not. If you had read what I had written then talking about Samurai and Battle Masters would be obviously stupid.

Try this. Read what I write. Take your time. Because this is like the 10th time in this thread alone that you have done this.

Choosing 4 of the same subclass against 4 of another subclass is just more white room nonsense. It's time to come out of the white room and try to see how things would work in a real game situation with all of the variables involved as they would be in a real game.

So, once more, your own claim of ANY team being balanced against ANY team is useless drivel. Because now you are backpedaling and saying that I am talking nonsense comparing these two teams.

It seems like, in reality, you meant "Any team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities is balanced against any other team of properly balanced characters with relevant and powerful abilities". Because, hell, even just saying that the Champion is the "weakest" subclass means that a team with a Champion is weaker and not balanced against a team with a Battlemaster. You have already introduced a scale, you just refuse to acknowledge it.

It's all relevant.

How is a spell they don't cast and may have not even prepared relevant?

The numbers don't really matter. All they do is support your feelings, not prove some sort of objective problem. You're saying, "I think this is over/under powered because of X numbers" and those X numbers won't be over/under powered for other people. You can throw them in if you like, but they aren't relevant to an opinion like this.

Are those numbers different for each person? Or are they the same and their opinions about those numbers different? Cause it turns out, that is an ENTIRELY different argument.

Correct.

Correct.

Oh, thank you Maxperson. I wasn't sure if I read things from the book meant they were correct until you stated they were. That was sarcasm.

The opinion is that the healing should counter damage of the same level when you don't have the math behind it. That's just your feelings.


Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that it's an issue or not balanced when looked at in the totality of the 4 PCs and all of their abilities vs. the monsters.

What math am I missing? You keep asserting, but not providing concrete examples just "you need to analyze EVERYTHING". Turns out, that since healing only interacts with HP, and therefore only with combat, I don't need to analyze whether or not Reliable Talent on persuasion is balanced against it. Because they don't interact within the same pillar. Sure, a CLASS can be balanced between three pillars, but an ABILITY or a SPELL likely isn't. You could do 1 million damage, but that doesn't mean anything to the social pillar.

You are violating Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation is that the players will be players and use utility to make the obstacles easier. Trying to claim that you will have 100% of your slots for combat since that might happen to a group once in a blue moon fails on its face. You don't design or argue around corner cases.

You are violating definitions: "Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. It is sometimes misleadingly characterized as a general recommendation of simpler explanations over more complex ones."

Also, you are still arguing in complete ignorance of or ignoring Ceteris Paribus. You want me to devote resources to something unnamed, undefined, and potentially nonexistent just because it might happen. But you have, yet again, never proven that a group of players WON'T choose to save their slots for combat and instead take the long way around obstacles.

Why would I try and disprove a Strawman? You admit to dropping half of what I said and since I didn't say I do only the half you are using, I'm under no obligation to prove or disprove something that I don't do and never said that I did.

So, no evidence yet again. Tell me, how often does "Trust me, it just does" work for you? Especially as you accuse the other side of just relying on their feelings?

I refer you to the myriad of fighter threads on the forum for why the champion is the weakest. As for you using the champion, it's the subclass with the most stability in damage for you to calculate from.


What subclass did you use?

I am not using the champion. As stated. Multiple times.

You keep reading assumptions into my posts, while not reading my actual posts. I have already stated I didn't use subclasses.

How are they better off dishing out a ton more damage and ending fights much sooner while not sacrificing much AC?

Interesting point. Let me consider something, you imagine dishing out more damage ends the fight sooner. And this would be better for the fighter. Yet, the Clerics are dishing out more damage per round.

At the same time, with less healing available, don't you think that the 10% increase in hits on Team Fighter makes them more vulnerable?

You've already demonstrated that fighters of the weakest(or one of the weakest) subclasses pull ahead of your clerics in the 6th fight of a 6-8 encounter adventuring day. That means that they are better in all adventuring days with 6-8 fights........................without feats. Feats just make them better, just as your optional cantrip makes your clerics better. Of course, get rid of the optional cantrip and your clerics don't do as much damage, so the fighters without feats are even better at the those 6-8 fights.

While the Cleric still had more resources to burn on increasing the gap yet again. And, as demonstrated at the end of my last post, it doesn't seem to matter.

No. It indicates that healing is not intended to be used in that fashion. It's primarily a whack-a-mole resource in combat.

Except that the design of healing spells shows you are wrong. Cure Wounds is a terrible whack-a-mole resource. It wouldn't exist in the same category as Healing Word if the design intention of healing spells was whack-a-mole.

In your white room, sure. In an actual game battle the fighters with their two handed weapons and feats drop those monsters more quickly and don't need nearly as much healing as the clerics do.

And my find traps spell worked and I avoided the "trap!" Mostly because it didn't exist due to being another white room construction of yours.

sigh

Really? Let's take a look.

We previously established the Cleric in the first three fights dealing 139.5 damage per fight. For two fights that is 279.

Fighter with a Greatsword, Great Weapon Fighting style is about +1 damage per attack, so that is 6d6+18 or 39 damage per round. That is 117 damage per fight or 234 damage, which is 45 damage less. Even if I account for Action Surge that is only another 39 damage, still keeping the fighter lower damage than the clerics.

So, if the Fighter is dropping enemies quickly enough to avoid needing as much healing, then the clerics are doing it EVEN FASTER.

Now, you'll want to insist that this is completely unfair unless I give the fighter Great Weapon Master. However, you have to remember that the -5 to hit lowers accuracy and lowers the ability for the fighter to deliver that damage. Meanwhile, part of the cleric damage is a save vs half damage, which never misses. Additionally, getting the feat means either the Fighter lowers their strength or lowers their con for less hp.

So, I'll need to do a completely different analysis here. I'll multiply the damage by 0.6 for a 60% hit rate. This will necessarily mean I'll have to assume the same for the Spirit Guardians which is innaccurate as it UNDERESTIMATES the cleric damage by assuming 0 damage when Spirit Guardians "misses".

279*0.6 = 167.40 for clerics.

However, for the Greatsword that is a multiplier of 0.35. Adding in the damage from GWM that gives us

414*0.35 = 144.9

STILL less than the cleric which is being UNDERESTIMATED by this analysis.

Now, I'll bet you'll want to say that the Fighter won't be using it all the time, they'll only use it in times that it "matters" or some other excuse. But frankly, the problem here is you keep assuming an answer, then insisting you are correct. Instead, look at the numbers. Then, if you disagree, prove it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes they did. Explicitly.

Where? I looked at it and all it is is X thing grants this much CR. It gives no math behind why it's that much of a CR. I can't calculate the CR of an ability that temporarily(until a short rest) cuts a PC's level in half with a Cha save DC of 17. I have no math to judge that by.

How applicable is Turn Undead in an adventuring day not featuring undead?

Undead will almost always be encountered at some point. Just like there will be adventuring days when you never use second wind. Just because an ability isn't universally useful, doesn't mean that it doesn't count.

So I have to analyze every single fighting style to be able to decide if Fighters can heal as much as Clerics? Can't just do one, and assume each style is balanced against the others, I need to do a separate analysis for all of them.

Comparing healing is another waste of time. If you haven't gotten by now that balance is more that just healing I'm not sure what else to say.

You did agree. Right here.

Where in that quote have I said, "I agree to no feats?"

Save against what? I don't NEED to use monsters that rely on saves. Again, you make assertions that my analysis is bad because I MUST include something that I am actually not required to use. Sure, maybe I will use things that use saves, maybe I won't. But that doesn't speak to anything beyond the ability to remake a save being good.

Here are the CR 11 creatures from the MM

Behir: Causes saves.
Djinni: Causes saves.
Efreeti: Causes saves.
Gynosphinx: Causes saves.
Horned Devil: Causes saves.
Remorhaz: Here's one without saves!!!
Roc: Causes saves.

Only one CR 11 creature doesn't involve saves and the CRs +2/-2 from 11 are similar in the frequency of saves. It's not a maybe you won't. Unless you're white rooming 6-8 encounters with Remorhazes and the like, saves are a part of the adventuring day at that level.

Try this. Read what I write. Take your time. Because this is like the 10th time in this thread alone that you have done this.

::holds up a mirror::

How is a spell they don't cast and may have not even prepared relevant?

Because outside of your white room, it is a spell that gets cast, as do many other spells. Clerics don't go walking around casting the same 2 spells over and over again. Or maybe some really, really boring players do that. In my experience the vast majority do not.

Are those numbers different for each person? Or are they the same and their opinions about those numbers different? Cause it turns out, that is an ENTIRELY different argument.

No it's not. You're sitting here claiming that the numbers for a spell are low and not balanced properly. That's you taking the same numbers we all see and forming an opinion about it that is likely not in line with WotC's design balance.

What math am I missing? You keep asserting, but not providing concrete examples just "you need to analyze EVERYTHING". Turns out, that since healing only interacts with HP, and therefore only with combat, I don't need to analyze whether or not Reliable Talent on persuasion is balanced against it. Because they don't interact within the same pillar. Sure, a CLASS can be balanced between three pillars, but an ABILITY or a SPELL likely isn't. You could do 1 million damage, but that doesn't mean anything to the social pillar.

You do need to analyze everything and here's why. If class A(cleric has good utility and social), having low healing and less combat ability when compared to the fighter with its greater combat ability is not a problem. It's part of the class design balance.

You are violating definitions: "Occam's razor is a principle of theory construction or evaluation according to which, other things equal, explanations that posit fewer entities, or fewer kinds of entities, are to be preferred to explanations that posit more. It is sometimes misleadingly characterized as a general recommendation of simpler explanations over more complex ones."

Yep. The simplest explanation is you are wrong here and the game is balanced properly with regard to the healing spells.

Also, you are still arguing in complete ignorance of or ignoring Ceteris Paribus. You want me to devote resources to something unnamed, undefined, and potentially nonexistent just because it might happen. But you have, yet again, never proven that a group of players WON'T choose to save their slots for combat and instead take the long way around obstacles.

First, you can't prove a negative. Second, the chances of a party doing as you describe are somewhere between nil and almost nil.

You keep reading assumptions into my posts, while not reading my actual posts. I have already stated I didn't use subclasses.

Okay, then you're even much more wrong than you were. Without a subclass the fighter without feats passes the cleric in the 6th fight. Add in subclasses and it happens much sooner. Most clerical subclass abilities deal with social and exploration. Most fighter subclass abilities are combat related.

No wonder you're fighting so hard not to include subclasses. Your clerics can barely hold their own in combat with full spellcasting against fighters without a subclass.

Interesting point. Let me consider something, you imagine dishing out more damage ends the fight sooner. And this would be better for the fighter. Yet, the Clerics are dishing out more damage per round.

This is objectively false. The fighters do in fact have subclasses, so you've wasted tons of my time with this nonsense comparison of only base classes. How about you stop wasting my time and use Battle Master for the fighter?

I deleted everything else because numbers without subclasses are an irrelevant waste of time and I will no longer entertain discussion along those lines. Battle Masters have increased damage from their superiority dice, and have the specials that come along with the maneuvers.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

This is objectively false. The fighters do in fact have subclasses, so you've wasted tons of my time with this nonsense comparison of only base classes. How about you stop wasting my time and use Battle Master for the fighter?

...i mean ok what it's 2 fights per short rest right? so 82.5 damage. 5 d10s in damage (assuming you use each maneuver for extra damage and assuming the enemy passes every save because i'm not even actually a part of this argument and i don't care enough to try to account for them failing) is 5*5.5 on average every short rest which is 27.5. so 27.5*3 because 3 short rests, 82.5 damage. at 6 fights the fighter was at 724.5 damage before battle master, the extra 90 damage puts them at 807.

but then maybe the clerics are death clerics, in which case they're doing an extra 54 (5+twice cleric level twice) necrotic damage every short rest, so they get an extra 162 damage added to their spiritual weapons or booming blades over the course of those 6 fights, bringing them up to...837 damage. so, uh. today i learned death clerics can do that.

edit: also, on a broader note, you two have gotten hilariously off topic

 

[Maxperson]

...i mean ok what it's 2 fights per short rest right? so 82.5 damage. 5 d10s in damage (assuming you use each maneuver for extra damage and assuming the enemy passes every save because i'm not even actually a part of this argument and i don't care enough to try to account for them failing) is 5*5.5 on average every short rest which is 27.5. so 27.5*3 because 3 short rests, 82.5 damage. at 6 fights the fighter was at 724.5 damage before battle master, the extra 90 damage puts them at 807.

Plus what the maneuvers do. That can't be overlooked. They're not just damage.

but then maybe the clerics are death clerics, in which case they're doing an extra 54 (5+twice cleric level twice) necrotic damage every short rest, so they get an extra 162 damage added to their spiritual weapons or booming blades over the course of those 6 fights, bringing them up to...837 damage. so, uh. today i learned death clerics can do that.

They still aren't going to have all slots used for combat damage. There will be utility and other healing needed. Fighters are still ahead in combat.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Plus what the maneuvers do. That can't be overlooked. They're not just damage.

They still aren't going to have all slots used for combat damage. There will be utility and other healing needed. Fighters are still ahead in combat.

i really don't care.

 

[Maxperson]

i really don't care.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Huh, seems I'm not getting that citation.

Where? I looked at it and all it is is X thing grants this much CR. It gives no math behind why it's that much of a CR. I can't calculate the CR of an ability that temporarily(until a short rest) cuts a PC's level in half with a Cha save DC of 17. I have no math to judge that by.

Pages 275 to 279. They have a 20 step process. It involves multiple calculations.

As for your insane ability, of course they don't have a CR for that. Abilities don't get CR and an ability that messes with level breaks CR over its knee, since CR is in relation to level. I can tell you that a DC 17 check starts at CR 11 if you want it based on that, but no ability in the game halves someone's level on a single failed save (for VERY good reasons) so you aren't going to find a balance point listed for that.

Undead will almost always be encountered at some point. Just like there will be adventuring days when you never use second wind. Just because an ability isn't universally useful, doesn't mean that it doesn't count.

Citation Needed.

Comparing healing is another waste of time. If you haven't gotten by now that balance is more that just healing I'm not sure what else to say.

So, your claim is a waste of time? Because comparing their "damage mitigation" abilities was your claim. I just wanted to discuss healing against monster damage.

Where in that quote have I said, "I agree to no feats?"

Where I asked you if it was balanced and you said yes.

Here are the CR 11 creatures from the MM

Behir: Causes saves.
Djinni: Causes saves.
Efreeti: Causes saves.
Gynosphinx: Causes saves.
Horned Devil: Causes saves.
Remorhaz: Here's one without saves!!!
Roc: Causes saves.

Only one CR 11 creature doesn't involve saves and the CRs +2/-2 from 11 are similar in the frequency of saves. It's not a maybe you won't. Unless you're white rooming 6-8 encounters with Remorhazes and the like, saves are a part of the adventuring day at that level.

And did you bother looking beyond the MM? Nope. And did you bother with looking at what those saves did? Nope. Because you are comparing a save versus grapple to a save versus damage to a save versus spells (only two of which have any offensive combat capability). Again, you make the same mistake, assuming just because an option exists I MUST account for every single interation of that option, because there is no difference between being grappled, taking damage, or being mildly inconvenienced with a single spell.

::holds up a mirror::

So, no self-reflection on your part or admitting to any mistakes you have REPEATEDLY made.

Cool. Glad I take my time to respond to you.

Because outside of your white room, it is a spell that gets cast, as do many other spells. Clerics don't go walking around casting the same 2 spells over and over again. Or maybe some really, really boring players do that. In my experience the vast majority do not.

But they may also not get cast. Again, the option existing doesn't mean that the option is taken. Not seeing a lot of clerics casting Water Walk in the last seven years. But the spell does exist.

No it's not. You're sitting here claiming that the numbers for a spell are low and not balanced properly. That's you taking the same numbers we all see and forming an opinion about it that is likely not in line with WotC's design balance.

So, you aren't actually arguing against my numbers. You agree that my numbers are true.

You are disagreeing that those numbers are a problem. That is a fundamentally different discussion than "those numbers are wrong" which is what you have said, repeatedly.

You do need to analyze everything and here's why. If class A(cleric has good utility and social), having low healing and less combat ability when compared to the fighter with its greater combat ability is not a problem. It's part of the class design balance.

And since "class A" has good utility, decent social, great combat ability and the best healing in the game? Also, again, why am I worried about the Bard's ability to seduce a bar maid when I'm talking about whether the best healing in the game is actually good enough? That is nonsense. I'm not looking at a third-rate healer, I'm looking at the iconic healing class of the game.... and finding it lacking in healing.

Yep. The simplest explanation is you are wrong here and the game is balanced properly with regard to the healing spells.

So everyone who thinks using healing spells in combat is a bad move are wrong? Based on... it being simpler that the game is designed perfectly with no flaws, despite the known flaws?

Truly, you are an astounding pillar of logic.

First, you can't prove a negative. Second, the chances of a party doing as you describe are somewhere between nil and almost nil.

You can't prove it, but you can state definitively that it is true?

Okay, then you're even much more wrong than you were. Without a subclass the fighter without feats passes the cleric in the 6th fight. Add in subclasses and it happens much sooner. Most clerical subclass abilities deal with social and exploration. Most fighter subclass abilities are combat related.

No wonder you're fighting so hard not to include subclasses. Your clerics can barely hold their own in combat with full spellcasting against fighters without a subclass.

Most clerics deal with social and exploration? Seriously? There are 14 official cleric subclasses. I count... 13 that have major abilities devoted to combat applications. And that's ignoring anything above level 6.

And, again, Ceteris Paribus.

This is objectively false. The fighters do in fact have subclasses, so you've wasted tons of my time with this nonsense comparison of only base classes. How about you stop wasting my time and use Battle Master for the fighter?

I deleted everything else because numbers without subclasses are an irrelevant waste of time and I will no longer entertain discussion along those lines. Battle Masters have increased damage from their superiority dice, and have the specials that come along with the maneuvers.

So an analysis of the base classes is OBJECTIVELY false, because it doesn't use the Battle Master fighter?

Would that make them objectively true if I used a Battle Master fighter with Evasive Footwork, Ambush, Tactical Assessment, Grappling Strike, Commanding Presence, Bait and Switch, and Rally? Would that satisfy you with my analysis? And then I could pick a Cleric Subclass to use as well?

 

[Maxperson]

Pages 275 to 279. They have a 20 step process. It involves multiple calculations.

All of which are tools for determining CR for the stuff THEY put forward with the MATH they keep secret.

As for your insane ability, of course they don't have a CR for that. Abilities don't get CR

Yes they do.

Aggressive increases damage which increases CR. Ambusher does the same with attack bonus. Lots of abilities give increased CR. Hell, it even lists the column those are in as "Effects on Challenge Rating."

and an ability that messes with level breaks CR over its knee, since CR is in relation to level. I can tell you that a DC 17 check starts at CR 11 if you want it based on that, but no ability in the game halves someone's level on a single failed save (for VERY good reasons) so you aren't going to find a balance point listed for that.

First, it's a viable ability if used carefully. Second, you're missing the forest for the trees. There are literally millions of abilities not on their short list that would have "Effects on Challenge Rating" and which we cannot rate since we do not have their math.

Citation Needed.

Page 24 of This is How the Game is Usually Played.

And did you bother looking beyond the MM? Nope. And did you bother with looking at what those saves did? Nope. Because you are comparing a save versus grapple to a save versus damage to a save versus spells (only two of which have any offensive combat capability). Again, you make the same mistake, assuming just because an option exists I MUST account for every single interation of that option, because there is no difference between being grappled, taking damage, or being mildly inconvenienced with a single spell.

A save is a save is a save.

But they may also not get cast. Again, the option existing doesn't mean that the option is taken. Not seeing a lot of clerics casting Water Walk in the last seven years. But the spell does exist.

Seen many create water? I have. Seen many detect evil? I have. Seen many detect poison? I have. Purify food and drink? Yep. The list goes on and on man. Utility spells get used.

You are disagreeing that those numbers are a problem. That is a fundamentally different discussion than "those numbers are wrong" which is what you have said, repeatedly.

They are in absolute fact, wrong. The game cannot be played RAW to 11th level without subclasses, therefore all your numbers are wrong. You'd have to compare levels prior to subclass which are levels 1 and 2 for most classes, but you couldn't use clerics at all.

You can't prove it, but you can state definitively that it is true?

Sure. I can't prove that you won't win the Powerball tomorrow, but I can tell you that your chances are absolutely somewhere between nil and almost nil.

So an analysis of the base classes is OBJECTIVELY false, because it doesn't use the Battle Master fighter?

No. Because you don't use any subclass which makes it a violation of RAW when comparing any class at 11th level and clerics starting at level 1.

Your numbers are an utter waste of time and energy.