Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
December 1st UA Spell changes
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8856550" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>You don't need to "dance through". Creatures can occupy the same 5ft space outside of combat. Ever seen a football huddle? And if that was what they wanted to fix, it would have been a trivial fix. "One creature within the spirit's square". It was absolutely meant to heal more than one person per round though, that is why it is worded the way it is. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There are far easier ways to make it heal only one person per round if that was the intent. It wasn't the intent. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If every other healing spell is too weak, then this one is actually on-par. And why is it bad to make healing between combats easy with a 2nd level slot? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But if the problem is that 1-handed weapons don't do enough damage, and "the katana" actually does the proper amount of damage for a 1-handed weapon, instead of nerfing it to do too little damage, shouldn't you buff everything else to do enough damage? </p><p></p><p>It sounds like what you are saying is "We have a general problem, this specific thing doesn't have that general problem and actually works. So we need to break this thing so it has the same problem, then fix the general problem" And that's just bizarre to me. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You realize that this doesn't solve any of your actual complaints right? Except that you think it looks stupid to "Dance through the space" which you don't need to do. You'd still be able to heal the entire party 10d6 between combat. All this does is make it worse IN combat, when that is when it is least problematic.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Making it more powerful, but less reliable does not fix the issue, no. Why would you think that is a viable solution? This just offers the chance to not only not deal with the enemies in any capacity, but risk wasting your entire turn. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As a 1st level, bonus action spell? Again, no one would take it. Because if you hit, you have done nothing to defeat the enemy. And if you miss, you have done nothing at all. The risks are not balanced here. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's try a different tactic to explain this instead of me just saying "unreliable healing but more is bad" . Let's white room for a second. </p><p></p><p>You have two warriors who are equally matched. Each Warrior has 50 hp and deals 10 damage on an attack. At this stage, whoever wins initiative likely wins. However, 2 - 1 is an unfair match, so the warrior who has a cleric on their side will win. </p><p></p><p>But, what should the cleric do if they have a choice between healing 5 hp, or dealing 7 damage? </p><p></p><p>The enemy warrior wins initiative and begins striking, in 5 rounds your ally will lose. If you heal 5 hp every round, then your ally will win, with 25 hp left, in round 5. But if you deal 7 damage every round, then your ally wins in round 3 with 30 hp left. You have left them with more health and they have won victory sooner. Dealing damage "heals" more than healing. </p><p></p><p>Now, you can only heal 3 times during the fight, before you are completely out of healing. What leaves your ally with the most health? Just attacking and doing zero healing. Again. I'm sure there is some mathematical way to turn this around, so that you can heal enough that even if you miss healing X% of the time, you will leave your ally with more than 30 hp, but with limited resources for healing, making it also unreliable doesn't actually make it the better choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8856550, member: 6801228"] You don't need to "dance through". Creatures can occupy the same 5ft space outside of combat. Ever seen a football huddle? And if that was what they wanted to fix, it would have been a trivial fix. "One creature within the spirit's square". It was absolutely meant to heal more than one person per round though, that is why it is worded the way it is. There are far easier ways to make it heal only one person per round if that was the intent. It wasn't the intent. If every other healing spell is too weak, then this one is actually on-par. And why is it bad to make healing between combats easy with a 2nd level slot? But if the problem is that 1-handed weapons don't do enough damage, and "the katana" actually does the proper amount of damage for a 1-handed weapon, instead of nerfing it to do too little damage, shouldn't you buff everything else to do enough damage? It sounds like what you are saying is "We have a general problem, this specific thing doesn't have that general problem and actually works. So we need to break this thing so it has the same problem, then fix the general problem" And that's just bizarre to me. You realize that this doesn't solve any of your actual complaints right? Except that you think it looks stupid to "Dance through the space" which you don't need to do. You'd still be able to heal the entire party 10d6 between combat. All this does is make it worse IN combat, when that is when it is least problematic. Making it more powerful, but less reliable does not fix the issue, no. Why would you think that is a viable solution? This just offers the chance to not only not deal with the enemies in any capacity, but risk wasting your entire turn. As a 1st level, bonus action spell? Again, no one would take it. Because if you hit, you have done nothing to defeat the enemy. And if you miss, you have done nothing at all. The risks are not balanced here. Let's try a different tactic to explain this instead of me just saying "unreliable healing but more is bad" . Let's white room for a second. You have two warriors who are equally matched. Each Warrior has 50 hp and deals 10 damage on an attack. At this stage, whoever wins initiative likely wins. However, 2 - 1 is an unfair match, so the warrior who has a cleric on their side will win. But, what should the cleric do if they have a choice between healing 5 hp, or dealing 7 damage? The enemy warrior wins initiative and begins striking, in 5 rounds your ally will lose. If you heal 5 hp every round, then your ally will win, with 25 hp left, in round 5. But if you deal 7 damage every round, then your ally wins in round 3 with 30 hp left. You have left them with more health and they have won victory sooner. Dealing damage "heals" more than healing. Now, you can only heal 3 times during the fight, before you are completely out of healing. What leaves your ally with the most health? Just attacking and doing zero healing. Again. I'm sure there is some mathematical way to turn this around, so that you can heal enough that even if you miss healing X% of the time, you will leave your ally with more than 30 hp, but with limited resources for healing, making it also unreliable doesn't actually make it the better choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
December 1st UA Spell changes
Top