I think it's more likely the DnD team had an idea for a healing spell and since that idea was a spirit, it fit more with the nature theme of druid and ranger.
Perhaps it's more the type of spirit in the latest UA example that determines who gets what. There is variation to which class gets which summons in the latest UA (conjure fey is i believe druid and ranger only. Actually I just looked it up. It is druid and warlock, I could have sworn it was 5th level but it's actually 6th so is unavailable to a ranger), it doesn't meant much though when it comes to healing spirit since it came out a while ago and doesn't reflect on any changing ideas the design team might have. They also call it a nature spirit. The original concept of the spell might very well have just lent itself to the nature casters rather than being some sort of healing upgrade to bring them up in healing capability.The newest UA has 5+ spirits for every caster though. And Rangers get the least spirits. Druid the 3rd least.
Spirits in a general sense aren't tied to either unless it directly tied to nature. And Rangers only geture animal and plant nature spirits, not fey nor elemental natural spirits.
Perhaps it's more the type of spirit in the latest UA example that determines who gets what. There is variation to which class gets which summons in the latest UA (conjure fey is i believe druid and ranger only. Actually I just looked it up. It is druid and warlock, I could have sworn it was 5th level but it's actually 6th so is unavailable to a ranger), it doesn't meant much though when it comes to healing spirit since it came out a while ago and doesn't reflect on any changing ideas the design team might have. They also call it a nature spirit. The original concept of the spell might very well have just lent itself to the nature casters rather than being some sort of healing upgrade to bring them up in healing capability.
Because it's Ranger and Druid only.
And Bard, Cleric, and Paladin didn't get a new nd level healing spell in XGTE.
The wizard doesn't use a crossbow, because while he is average, average just gets you killed when you miss the enemy.
Many people will say that a crossbow is actually better than a cantrip, especially at low levels. You lose a bit of accuracy (assuming a typical wizard stat spread), but you make up for it with much higher damage.That would seem to miss the point of what Saelorn wants, and frankly if it doesn't use INT, it is still a worse choice than a cantrip.
Many people will say that a crossbow is actually better than a cantrip, especially at low levels. You lose a bit of accuracy (assuming a typical wizard stat spread), but you make up for it with much higher damage.
The real "innovation" of 4E, which 5E adopted, was to make your stats irrelevant by letting you use your one good score for anything you really care about. Cantrips let a wizard have a reliable ranged attack, even if their Dexterity is garbage. Javelins let a paladin have a reliable ranged attack, even if their Dexterity is garbage. Finesse weapons let a rogue have a strong melee attack, even if their Strength is garbage.
And to what benefit? To strengthen the existing archetypes? To remove meaningful choices, of shoring up your weaknesses rather than improving your strengths even further?
It's pointless, especially since they then go in and enforce those mandatory shortcomings in other ways. Wizards are supposed to be bad with their at-will ranged attacks, but since you can no longer use Dexterity as a variable, they give cantrips even worse damage than a crossbow. Wizards are supposed to be bad with their at-will ranged attacks, but since you can no longer use Dexterity as a variable, they make javelins so that you can only use one of them per round. Rogues are supposed to be bad at melee, but since we can no longer use Strength as a variable, they just make finesse weapons worse as a baseline. It's tedious, unnecessary complexity.
When you're fighting something with 5hp, the difference between 1d10 and 1d8+2 is pretty significant.So, if your wizard wants damage, a crossbow is about 1 point on average better damage, if you have a 14 dex. That is not "much higher damage"
It removes the option of playing a high-Dex wizard or paladin, who makes up for having lower peak efficacy by raising their floor performance. It means that the right way to play a wizard is to maximize their Int, because that's all you ever need, instead of there being any trade-offs involved.Also, I see no meaningful choices removed. I think it more just allows characters to be effective, without having to have long stretches of time where they are uselessly flailing around.
When you're fighting something with 5hp, the difference between 1d10 and 1d8+2 is pretty significant.
It removes the option of playing a high-Dex wizard or paladin, who makes up for having lower peak efficacy by raising their floor performance. It means that the right way to play a wizard is to maximize their Int, because that's all you ever need, instead of there being any trade-offs involved.
Yeah, that just isn't how they do most of their design.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.