December 1st UA Spell changes

[Chaosmancer]

There is a reason to go back to the 4e style of using hit dice to heal in order to provide better healing. In 4e, a healing surge healed you for 25% of your maximum hit points.

You could only use this once per encounter with Second Wind, or outside of battle, after the 5 minute short rest. Most spells that allowed you to heal gave you your healing surge value plus a bonus of some kind.

This allowed for a Healing Word to provide a significant chunk of hp, but it also limited how much healing one could receive over the course of a day. The usual argument about healing spells comes down to this-

*The ultimate limit to how much players can accomplish in a game day is their hit point totals. Every spell slot or ability that provides healing is in addition to your use of Hit Dice.

When you take these things in aggregate, only a tough encounter can really drain the resources of non-spellcasters in any real way. In fact, some non-spellcasters, like the Fighter, even have a resource to heal on their own, that is recoverable.

So consider a 4th level Fighter with a 16 Constitution. Let's say they have 36 hit points. To actually stop them from engaging in fights, you need to get them down to 50-75% of their total hit points. By themselves, with no one else, you need to consider 4d10+8 healing from Hit Dice, and their Second Wind, which is another 1d10+2 that can refresh after a short rest.

Then you have to take into account whatever healing they could get from their Cleric/Bard/Druid/Paladin/Ranger in the party, not to mention cheap potions of healing (in a game that doesn't give you much to spend money on) and the Healer Feat.

If you're the kind of DM who uses an attrition model for adventure design, even if you limit resting using grittier rules, or ban the purchase of healing potions, this is already a high bar to achieve in order to feel like you're actually draining resources from the party.

If healing spells get better without changing anything else, that bar might become stratospheric. And this is assuming you actually can fit in the fabled 6ish encounters per game day.

Anything that the players can do to rest more often also has to be addressed, since that gives them more ready access to resources.

I can't stand this model personally, I want healing magic to feel worthwhile again. But at the same time, I'm not going to force extra battles just to pad out my adventure, and I also like big setpiece battles that are tougher than normal (and thus, might require better combat healing).

But as long as this is the way 5e is built, we're going to get pushback even if we mathematically prove that combat healing is terrible, because there are DM's who are looking at daily resources players have, and already feel it's too much.

I'm sure if Divine Spark leaves the playtest intact, that's going to be one more issue for them, especially since they also seem to want players to regain all Hit Dice at the end of a long rest, instead of half...

There is a problem in your model though. And it is also a problem I addressed with a completely different rule. You assume that to stop the fighter you need to drain all of their Hit Dice. This is only true if A) You want to stop the fighter from adventuring and B) They have time to short rest during the encounters you are planning.

I have often seen players panicking because they have reached 50% of their hp, with full HD left. I once had a game where, as a Life Cleric, I had to insist that the party only take a short rest instead of long rest, in the middle of dungeon, because we didn't need to recover all of our resources. It isn't a matter of the actual danger, but the perception of danger for many players. And if they drop to 10% of their hp, while still having all their HD, they aren't thinking "this was a boring adventure, I still had plenty in the tank", they are thinking "Dang, that was close, one more hit and I would have dropped". Because it doesn't matter what the HD are, it matters how many hp you have until you drop and if you need to seek a place to hole up and heal.

I'm still somewhat baffled by this idea that every fight and every adventure should have the party on the edge of their seat, in fear of whether or not they can survive, no matter how prepared they are for the adventure. If someone brought a healer, then I'm fine with the party being less worried about dying than if they didn't. That seems like the entire job of the healer. But right now, most parties just rely on short rests and potions and only use the healer to pop them up. The healer isn't changing gameplay by being included. In fact, many times the healer doesn't bother to use their resources on healing, because it isn't worth it.

Now, I will admit, I have houserule that helps with attrition. It has rarely come up, just do to not having long-term games recently, but it solves the problem from a different angle.

When you Long Rest, you don't regain hit points for free. You spend Hit Dice as normal. And, like the original rules, you only regain half your HD on a long rest (before or after you heal). This means that my attrition (when I can utilize it) isn't one day of fighting. It is multiple days of fighting. Sure, you get all your spells back, but you don't get items and you slowly drain of Hit dice.


I'm tired and maybe not phrasing things the best, but this is where I'm at. I don't want potions and magic items to be the main healing. I don'teven particularly want Out of Combat healing to be the only viable option. I want in-combat healing to matter. Because that is when players are most engaged with their hit points, and where the healer WANTS to be the most effective. At preventing that drop to 0. Not at making the short rest more effective.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip

You seem to insist, that I disagree with maoing healing stronger. Which i don't say.
You say, I am upset that you include it. No I am not upset by whatever you do. If you like such games. Fine. I don't. We are not playing an MMO...

I don't want healing to be too powerful except for possibly the best of the best healers, not everyone.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You seem to insist, that I disagree with maoing healing stronger. Which i don't say.

Well all I have definitively said on this front is that healing should be stronger, and offered a vague baseline for what I think it should be (1 action from a healer to heal 1 at-will action of a CR appropriate monster). And you keep pushing back that that would make the game lame because too much healing is boring.

So, while you say you want to make healing stronger, you are disagreeing with the only model currently presented and not offering an alternative beyond something something Hit Dice. Does that mean more hit dice? Hit dice with spells (something I suggested for increasing healing to bring it in line with what I wanted)? Bonus Action Hit Dice spending? I can't exactly tell where we are at here except you disagree with me.

You say, I am upset that you include it. No I am not upset by whatever you do. If you like such games. Fine. I don't. We are not playing an MMO...

And yet, instead of just accepting that I included it and that it has been fine, you decided to tell me how it needed to be nerfed and it is inappropriate to include it in the game. I can do what I want... as long as you can lecture me about why I'm wrong?

I don't want healing to be too powerful except for possibly the best of the best healers, not everyone.

And how would we determine who the best of the best healers are? My guess would be Clerics and Druids.

And how do they heal? Mostly with spells. So.... unless we are redesigning class or subclass features, all we have to discuss are spells. And certainly not "everyone" has access to healing magic. So, where am I going wrong here?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Snip.

I give up. Let's just assume you are right.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Then you're wasting your time. I'm not going to waste mine with you.

Feel free to stop responding at any time.

I never said they were healing the same hit. I said that the game is balance around the entire party's resources, not one spell like you want to make it out to be.

Is firebolt balanced around the paladin being able to divine smite? Because that is what you are saying, that any spell isn't balanced by itself, but is balanced in the context of every possible resource of a hypothetical party. That isn't how balance works.

And I'm not trying to balance the game around a single spell. There could be a solution here by creating new spells. What I am doing is comparing this spell action, which is the best single target heal for over 10 levels of the game, against the thing it is supposed to be able to do. I'm using cure wounds because there isn't a better healing spell to use, not because I'm trying to balance the entire game on this single spell.

Then again, you're wasting your time. The game isn't balanced around the healer alone, so if you're trying to reduce it to only the healer and then talk balance, you're spinning your wheels.

This is madness. This is like saying that you can't balance the fighter, because the game is balanced around the entire party so you'd have to consider the rogue, wizard and cleric before being capable of even discussing the fighter. But what if the party is all fighters? Is it therefore impossible to balance the fighter?

No. You look at the fighter, you look at what they should be able to do, and then you balance around the performance they should have. You don't need to consider every other possible thing that any party member may possibly be able to do.

So this is what you aren't getting. It's all "healing." The barbarian with resistance to all attacks but psychic is "healing" 8 points of the 16 done when he takes half damage. The rogue who sneak attacks and kills something early "heals" the damage that would have been done had the rogue not done so much damage so quickly and the monster lived another round or two.

WotC has the calculations with the abilities, spells, etc. and have balanced the game around all of it, not just your healer and his one spell. 5e is resource management that is based around hit points, and that's far more than just healing.

No, this is you not getting it. Damage isn't healing. If I say I'm building a healer then I show up with a Barbarian/Assassin Rogue then I have not made a healer. This is nonsense, a hammer saying that everything looks like a nail.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I give up. Let's just assume you are right.

Okay, so which method would be the most balanced way to increase healing?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Okay, so which method would be the most balanced way to increase healing?

Adding hit dice to the mix. Short burst healings. Having to spread around healing. Limiting powerful healing over the day, besides spell slots.

Having a diverse number of different spells, that are useful outside combat or in combat which telegraph it better to the reader. I like the direction of one dnd to try and make intends more obvious (what Jeremy Crawford told us in the video).

I think the new improved prayer of healing is a nice spell. I think, I'd remove the once per day limit or add ritual casting (not both).
I'd buff healing spirit to the old version in light of OneDnD and even improve it.

Bigger area (3 by 3 ft) , healing all characters in the area once per round. Equally useful in combat and outside, with the disadvantage of cocenteation durong combat.

 

[Maxperson]

Is firebolt balanced around the paladin being able to divine smite? Because that is what you are saying, that any spell isn't balanced by itself, but is balanced in the context of every possible resource of a hypothetical party. That isn't how balance works.

Neither is what you are incorrectly claiming that I'm saying.

The way it works is that WotC has calculated X amount of damage and damage prevention on average spread out over the adventuring day. If they've calculated it at 20 points of prevention(arbitrary number), then it doesn't matter if it's 4 points from your healing spell, 8 points from barbarian resistance, and 8 points from the fighter's second wind or any other combination of 20. 20 is it.

They know all the 1st level abilities, 2nd level abilities, etc. and they calculate those in when figuring out balance. Looking at your healing spell in isolation the way you are doing is worthless when figuring out whether things are balanced or not. Balance doesn't work that way.

And I'm not trying to balance the game around a single spell. There could be a solution here by creating new spells.

You haven't yet shown there to be a problem, let alone gotten to the point where we should be looking at solutions.

What I am doing is comparing this spell action, which is the best single target heal for over 10 levels of the game, against the thing it is supposed to be able to do. I'm using cure wounds because there isn't a better healing spell to use, not because I'm trying to balance the entire game on this single spell.

And you are looking at it in isolation, rather than as a whole with every other party member and all of their abilities.

This is madness. This is like saying that you can't balance the fighter, because the game is balanced around the entire party so you'd have to consider the rogue, wizard and cleric before being capable of even discussing the fighter. But what if the party is all fighters? Is it therefore impossible to balance the fighter?

If it's all fighters, then they have multiples of their abilities and those will be greater than a single fighter with a single ability. WotC isn't you, though. They have to balance groups of 4 against the monsters, and see if the totality of abilities is good.

No. You look at the fighter, you look at what they should be able to do, and then you balance around the performance they should have. You don't need to consider every other possible thing that any party member may possibly be able to do.

Then you fail. You will never achieve anything resembling balance if you continue to white room compare single classes and abilities to the game. This is a group game, not an individual one and is not balanced around the individual.

Damage isn't healing.

If I kill the monster before it would have done 12 points of damage to you, I in effect healed you for those 12 points. High DPR classes "heal" by doing increased damage. It's not a difficult concept.

If I say I'm building a healer then I show up with a Barbarian/Assassin Rogue then I have not made a healer. This is nonsense, a hammer saying that everything looks like a nail.

I put heal in "" for a reason. You can't reasonably have thought I was literally saying they were healing.

 

[James Gasik]

Ah yes, the "death is the best status effect" approach. It's irksome, but that's how the game has been designed for awhile. Have everyone optimize to end combats quickly and you'll never notice how shabby in combat healing is.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Adding hit dice to the mix. Short burst healings. Having to spread around healing. Limiting powerful healing over the day, besides spell slots.

Okay, what do we mean by "short burst healings"? That sounds the exact same as Cure Wounds to me, so what does this mean?

Having to spread around healing sounds like just needing to spread around damage. I'm not sure how you can change healing to incentivize spreading it around unless there is damage to be healed. Unless you just cap healing and force it to spread, which just wastes it.

If you are adding in Hit Dice, then healing is limited by the hit dice, as well as spell slots. But are you talking about things like only allowing a spell to work once per day? Because that is just annoying to track.

Having a diverse number of different spells, that are useful outside combat or in combat which telegraph it better to the reader. I like the direction of one dnd to try and make intends more obvious (what Jeremy Crawford told us in the video).

Agreed. More diverse spells for different needs are awesome.

I think the new improved prayer of healing is a nice spell. I think, I'd remove the once per day limit or add ritual casting (not both).
I'd buff healing spirit to the old version in light of OneDnD and even improve it.

Agreed. I want to just removed the once per day limit. The ritual casting would make it even worse to have to prepare it for the day, because you would take up a prepared slot but can only use it once.

Bigger area (3 by 3 ft) , healing all characters in the area once per round. Equally useful in combat and outside, with the disadvantage of concentration during combat.

Disagree here, it would be less useful in combat (also, you made it smaller? Did you mean 3 x 3 squares?) if it only healed an area once per round. Everyone would have to group up into fireball formation instead of using 5e's movement rules to sweep in and out.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Neither is what you are incorrectly claiming that I'm saying.

The way it works is that WotC has calculated X amount of damage and damage prevention on average spread out over the adventuring day. If they've calculated it at 20 points of prevention(arbitrary number), then it doesn't matter if it's 4 points from your healing spell, 8 points from barbarian resistance, and 8 points from the fighter's second wind or any other combination of 20. 20 is it.

They know all the 1st level abilities, 2nd level abilities, etc. and they calculate those in when figuring out balance. Looking at your healing spell in isolation the way you are doing is worthless when figuring out whether things are balanced or not. Balance doesn't work that way.

Are you joking right now? That isn't how they balance the game. They CAN'T balance it that way. For it to be balanced this way a group of 4 Paladins would have to have identical damage mitigation to a group of 4 sorcerers. And they don't. And they didn't balance it by saying that Sorcerers deal more damage, so that makes up for the Paladins having more healing and better saves.

And I'm not looking at the spell in isolation. I'm looking at it while considering CR, spell slots, average monster damage design, and average hp. You keep acting like all I did was look at 1d8+wis mod and say "that can't be enough!" But that isn't what I did.

You haven't yet shown there to be a problem, let alone gotten to the point where we should be looking at solutions.

Yes, yes I did. And even if I didn't, this conversation started with an acknowledgement by multiple parties that healing in 5e is too weak.

And you are looking at it in isolation, rather than as a whole with every other party member and all of their abilities.

Maybe that is because there is no possible way to predict what the rest of the party looks like, or what abilities they have.

If it's all fighters, then they have multiples of their abilities and those will be greater than a single fighter with a single ability. WotC isn't you, though. They have to balance groups of 4 against the monsters, and see if the totality of abilities is good.

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.

Then you fail. You will never achieve anything resembling balance if you continue to white room compare single classes and abilities to the game. This is a group game, not an individual one and is not balanced around the individual.

I haven't failed yet. No reason to believe that it will all suddenly collapse after the years of me doing it.

If I kill the monster before it would have done 12 points of damage to you, I in effect healed you for those 12 points. High DPR classes "heal" by doing increased damage. It's not a difficult concept.

I put heal in "" for a reason. You can't reasonably have thought I was literally saying they were healing.

You have not "in effect" healed me at all. Because you have no knowledge that that monster was going to deal 12 damage. Maybe it was going to deal zero damage. Maybe 5 damage. Maybe 30 damage.

And sure, "If I kill the monster, it can't hurt me" is a concept. But it isn't the concept of a HEALER. If it was, then Assassins would be the premier healers of any game. But they aren't, they are in a category called "Damage per Round" or DPR. Healing is a different category, because DPR =/= healing. You don't just get to redefine things and pretend you are right.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ah yes, the "death is the best status effect" approach. It's irksome, but that's how the game has been designed for awhile. Have everyone optimize to end combats quickly and you'll never notice how shabby in combat healing is.

Too bad so many of us noticed how shabby in-combat healing is.

 

[Maxperson]

Are you joking right now? That isn't how they balance the game. They CAN'T balance it that way. For it to be balanced this way a group of 4 Paladins would have to have identical damage mitigation to a group of 4 sorcerers. And they don't. And they didn't balance it by saying that Sorcerers deal more damage, so that makes up for the Paladins having more healing and better saves.

Balance is a range, not an exact number.

Yes, yes I did. And even if I didn't, this conversation started with an acknowledgement by multiple parties that healing in 5e is too weak.

That's certainly an opinion. It's not fact, though.

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

Are you serious right now?

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?

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.

You have not "in effect" healed me at all. Because you have no knowledge that that monster was going to deal 12 damage. Maybe it was going to deal zero damage. Maybe 5 damage. Maybe 30 damage.

And sure, "If I kill the monster, it can't hurt me" is a concept. But it isn't the concept of a HEALER. If it was, then Assassins would be the premier healers of any game. But they aren't, they are in a category called "Damage per Round" or DPR. Healing is a different category, because DPR =/= healing. You don't just get to redefine things and pretend you are right.

You clearly don't get it, so I'm going to let this drop.

 

[James Gasik]

Too bad so many of us noticed how shabby in-combat healing is.

Well that's the theory, anyways. I'm all for getting combats done with, but optimizing for damage alone is super boring for me.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Okay, what do we mean by "short burst healings"? That sounds the exact same as Cure Wounds to me, so what does this mean?

Snip

Disagree here, it would be less useful in combat (also, you made it smaller? Did you mean 3 x 3 squares?) if it only healed an area once per round. Everyone would have to group up into fireball formation instead of using 5e's movement rules to sweep in and out.

1. Short and powerful burst healing options (as suggested: spend up to 1 hit die per spell level on top).

2. Yes, 3 by 3 squares.
Maybe a buff and a nerf. Yes, you need to group up, but you don't have to worry about Attacks of Opportunities. In a fight, where you need constant healing, you probably want to stay in close formation anyway.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Balance is a range, not an exact number.

And? What, because it is a range you are right about your range of "consider everything all the time, assume it is all balanced, and therefore nothing needs to be improved" but my range of "we should be able to hit close to these benchmarks" is wrong? All you are doing is asserting "because barbarian's can rage, clerical healing is balanced" and other such nonsense, meanwhile I'm showing that one action (not one attack) from a monster of equal CR to character level (CR being the challenge rating for "a group of 4 of this level should be able to defeat this monster relatively easily) generally does enough average damage (a range) that a single action from a cleric cannot provide enough average healing (a range) to counter-act.

I have data. You have assertions that you are the most correct ever.

That's certainly an opinion. It's not fact, though.

Can you... disprove it? I've provided evidence backing up the claim, showing how actual healing abilities interact with the damage of monsters. You say it is false because rogues can sneak attack and kill enemies, and that should be counted as healing.

Are you serious right now?

You have asserted that the game is balanced so that healing abilities are balanced via party resources, damage dealing, and damage mitigation. So, a party of 4 high-level fighters with Second Wind should be equivalent to a party of 4 high-level clerics with Heal. That is your claim. If you think that is ridiculous, perhaps you have either so poorly presented your claim that you should revisit it, or you should begin to realize your claim has deep flaws.

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.

Fighters can absolutely fall behind in damage output, even compared to clerics. Because while the claim is that "fighters can go all day" the truth is they cannot. They are limited by their HP, and to get enough fights per day to balance out the use of spells often takes a huge number of fights.

Heck, let's run the numbers real fast. I was using 11th level characters. Everything is balanced against everything, as per your claim.

To reach 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis the cleric needs to cast Spirit Guardians as 3rd and Spiritual Weapon at 4th, then using a weapon cantrip like booming blade. They can do this for three fights, three rounds per fight. I know there is a 1 round delay here, but we're just getting some baseline numbers to start with.

That would be (9d8+6) x 3 rounds or 139.5 x 3 combats or a total of 418.5 average damage. This is rough, spirit guardians is a save for half and an AOE after all, but hey, this gets us in the ballpark.

So, a fighter with 20's in stats, sword and board, would get 3d8+21 x 3 rounds or 103.5 per fight. Which means the fighter needs a 4th fight to catch up.

But, oops, the Cleric is in that 4th fight too, and they still have 2nd level slots and can deal 5d8+6 per round for another three fights. Which is another 256.5 damage, so over 6 fights I've got 675. Fighter after 6 fights is still half a fight behind. So we'd need to go into a 7th fight. Of course, the cleric still has two 5th level slots...


And yes, I'm discounting that first round of cleric spellcasting for those first three combats, I'm also assuming that you are using an AOE to hit a single target. I'm discounting accuracy, but I'm also discounting save for half and the rider on the weapon cantrip.

And remember, HP is the resource for how long the fight can go. The fighter may start with slightly more (+1 from the cleric before accounting for Con mod) but they heal much less. 16.5 every two fights, compared to the Cleric getting back 70. Which means you need FOUR second winds, which if we assume a short rest every two fights means you need 8 fights for the Fighter to heal as much as the cleric can in a single go.


So, again, I'm not sure that these things are really balanced like you seem to think they are.

You clearly don't get it, so I'm going to let this drop.

Right, I'm the one who doesn't understand.

 

[Chaosmancer]

1. Short and powerful burst healing options (as suggested: spend up to 1 hit die per spell level on top).

Ah, I thought that was different than the hit dice consideration

2. Yes, 3 by 3 squares.
Maybe a buff and a nerf. Yes, you need to group up, but you don't have to worry about Attacks of Opportunities. In a fight, where you need constant healing, you probably want to stay in close formation anyway.

I don't really see much of a buff here. Instead of healing anyone who can reach the spirit, it ends up being a tight 10 ft area. And while opportunity attacks are lessened, you also have lost the freedom to move and hit targets how you want to hit them.

I could be wrong, but it just feels overall like a nerf. Clustering like that is very very rough, especially for a d6 healing once per round.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I could be wrong, but it just feels overall like a nerf. Clustering like that is very very rough, especially for a d6 healing once per round.

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...

 

[Maxperson]

And? What, because it is a range you are right about your range of "consider everything all the time, assume it is all balanced, and therefore nothing needs to be improved" but my range of "we should be able to hit close to these benchmarks" is wrong?

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

All you are doing is asserting "because barbarian's can rage, clerical healing is balanced" and other such nonsense, meanwhile I'm showing that one action (not one attack) from a monster of equal CR to character level (CR being the challenge rating for "a group of 4 of this level should be able to defeat this monster relatively easily) generally does enough average damage (a range) that a single action from a cleric cannot provide enough average healing (a range) to counter-act.

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.

I have data. You have assertions that you are the most correct ever.

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.

Can you... disprove it? I've provided evidence backing up the claim, showing how actual healing abilities interact with the damage of monsters. You say it is false because rogues can sneak attack and kill enemies, and that should be counted as healing.

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.

You have asserted that the game is balanced so that healing abilities are balanced via party resources, damage dealing, and damage mitigation. So, a party of 4 high-level fighters with Second Wind should be equivalent to a party of 4 high-level clerics with Heal.

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.

That is your claim. If you think that is ridiculous

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

Fighters can absolutely fall behind in damage output, even compared to clerics. Because while the claim is that "fighters can go all day" the truth is they cannot. They are limited by their HP, and to get enough fights per day to balance out the use of spells often takes a huge number of fights.

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.

To reach 3d8+2d8+wis+4d8+wis the cleric needs to cast Spirit Guardians as 3rd and Spiritual Weapon at 4th, then using a weapon cantrip like booming blade. They can do this for three fights, three rounds per fight. I know there is a 1 round delay here, but we're just getting some baseline numbers to start with.

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.

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.

That would be (9d8+6) x 3 rounds or 139.5 x 3 combats or a total of 418.5 average damage. This is rough, spirit guardians is a save for half and an AOE after all, but hey, this gets us in the ballpark.

So, a fighter with 20's in stats, sword and board, would get 3d8+21 x 3 rounds or 103.5 per fight. Which means the fighter needs a 4th fight to catch up.

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

But, oops, the Cleric is in that 4th fight too, and they still have 2nd level slots and can deal 5d8+6 per round for another three fights. Which is another 256.5 damage, so over 6 fights I've got 675. Fighter after 6 fights is still half a fight behind. So we'd need to go into a 7th fight. Of course, the cleric still has two 5th level slots...

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.

And remember, HP is the resource for how long the fight can go. The fighter may start with slightly more (+1 from the cleric before accounting for Con mod) but they heal much less. 16.5 every two fights, compared to the Cleric getting back 70. Which means you need FOUR second winds, which if we assume a short rest every two fights means you need 8 fights for the Fighter to heal as much as the cleric can in a single go.

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.

Right, I'm the one who doesn't understand.

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.

 

[James Gasik]

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.

Well, unless they're an Arcana Cleric. Or a High Elf.