D&D 5E Healing spirit has been updated?

[Mistwell]

I asked Jeremy Crawford on Twitter if it was an April Fools joke and...no reply

 

[FrogReaver]

Wizards are just as good if not better than using a crossbow than your average peasant.

Are we saying that someone with no training should be better than average with a weapon?

Yes. Weapon use also depends on physical characteristics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes. Weapon use also depends on physical characteristics.

Exactly, and the wizard will likely have a higher dex than 10. So they will likely be better than a commoner.

But Saelorn seems to be of the opnion that wizards aren't good enough with crossbows, and I'm curious how much better they would wish them to be with them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly, and the wizard will likely have a higher dex than 10. So they will likely be better than a commoner.

But Saelorn seems to be of the opnion that wizards aren't good enough with crossbows, and I'm curious how much better they would wish them to be with them.

Sounds like he wants it to be about as powerful for a wizard as a firebolt.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sounds like he wants it to be about as powerful for a wizard as a firebolt.

But that would mean being as good with the weapon as a dex based class like the rogue, or a crossbow fighter.

That seems a little unreasonable to me, unless we entirely remove the idea of proficiencies. Hence, why I was asking.

 

[FrogReaver]

But that would mean being as good with the weapon as a dex based class like the rogue, or a crossbow fighter.

That seems a little unreasonable to me, unless we entirely remove the idea of proficiencies. Hence, why I was asking.

No. Extra attack + archery style or hiding + sneak attack make the fighter and rouge far superior.

 

[Minigiant]

Some people want their casters to be one-trick ponies who can only use magic, and can't do anything else. Coming from older editions, I find that to be a very limiting perspective.

A wizard isn't supposed to be less than a non-wizard. You don't forget how to use your hands, just because you've learned to cast spells. A wizard is a person who has added magic to their skill-set. Of course they should be able to fire a crossbow! I mean, what kind of weird entity isn't even capable of using a simple mechanical device?

The problem is proficiency.
There is only proficient and nonproficeint with weapons. A wizard is as proficient as a ranger with the crossbow.
But a ranger is supposed to be a better archer. So the crossbow is made bad and the ranger gets the superior bows and Extra attack.

D&D is lousy at creating tiers and sticking to them.
That's the whole point of this discussion.

Healing Spirit was supposed to bring a Druid up to A tier with the Cleric and Ranger up to C tier with the Paladin. But it was too strong.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Wizards are just as good if not better than using a crossbow than your average peasant.

Are we saying that someone with no training should be better than average with a weapon?

I'm saying that, just because you're below-average at something, that doesn't mean you should never do it.

Wizards should be (relatively) bad at making weapon attacks, but if they never use weapons - if nobody ever does anything that they're (relatively) bad at - then it skews the average. On average, most people will only take actions that they're supposed to be very good at (in an objective sense), and that's the new baseline because nobody ever does anything else.

Mathematically speaking, if every attack roll is made at +7 (for example), then +7 is the average. Never mind that your +4 from Dexterity is theoretically supposed to give you some sort of advantage over someone with a +1. The paladin with the javelin has +4 from Strength, and the wizard with a cantrip has +4 from Int, so they've both contrived ways to never rely on their Dexterity for ranged attacks. You aren't actually better than average, thanks to your high Dex. You're just average.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm saying that, just because you're below-average at something, that doesn't mean you should never do it.

Wizards should be (relatively) bad at making weapon attacks, but if they never use weapons - if nobody ever does anything that they're (relatively) bad at - then it skews the average. On average, most people will only take actions that they're supposed to be very good at (in an objective sense), and that's the new baseline because nobody ever does anything else.

Mathematically speaking, if every attack roll is made at +7 (for example), then +7 is the average. Never mind that your +4 from Dexterity is theoretically supposed to give you some sort of advantage over someone with a +1. The paladin with the javelin has +4 from Strength, and the wizard with a cantrip has +4 from Int, so they've both contrived ways to never rely on their Dexterity for ranged attacks. You aren't actually better than average, thanks to your high Dex. You're just average.

Right, we make the most optimal choice to damage our foes.

My rogue doesn't pick up a greatsword, because while he can be average with it, he's better with a shortsword.

The wizard doesn't use a crossbow, because while he is average, average just gets you killed when you miss the enemy.

I don't see a problem with that.

 

[FrogReaver]

Right, we make the most optimal choice to damage our foes.

My rogue doesn't pick up a greatsword, because while he can be average with it, he's better with a shortsword.

The wizard doesn't use a crossbow, because while he is average, average just gets you killed when you miss the enemy.

I don't see a problem with that.

I personally have no issue with a crossbow wielding wizard. I'd gladly give you a cantrip that scales crossbow damage for a single attack with it.