Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="keterys" data-source="post: 6593444" data-attributes="member: 43019">I don't have my book here, but I believe you can bring someone down to 1 hp as often as you want.You get the 1d6+3+lvl once per rest, it's true. That's why my warlock took it, both to make people more comfortable because no one wanted to be a cleric, and also to not-so-subtly encourage people to take short rests, because I wanted short rests so I could get my spell slots (having seen a group that refused to short rest, so long as they were going fine).Sure does. It's a whole lot better than a feat for a single cure wounds per day <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Eh, the druid's using 2 1st level slots for good berries each day, at 9th level. That's not exactly breaking the bank _or_ hurting her ability to interact effectively with encounters. Even at 2nd level, it didn't affect her ability, since she was a wolf or bear then.And 20 hp of goodberry, spent exactly as you want it, is a lot better than 13 hp of cure wounds in 2 random chunks.The healing approach TPKs as often, or leads to flight as often, but it's often more subtle.Damage you don't take, because the enemy is incapacitated or dead, is the most proactive form of healing possible. Healing in 5e requires valuable actions and heals for less than enemies hit for. Only in rare circumstances is it worthwhile to do so.I've seen many a playtest of high defense high heal parties get into far greater danger because they lacked the ability to finish the enemies. I don't consider it an ideal balance for dnd, but it's certainly been the case for almost the entirety of its existence (3e Mass Heal is a good exception).In some ways that is true, but the wizard suffers from some awful legacy spells which _are_ its fault. For example, there's no reason Burning Hands had to be such a tiny AE that put the wizard at such risk. If it had been a 10' radius with a 100' range, that would still be a reasonable, not even terribly effective, spell, but one that would improve both the wizard and sorcerer into more reasonable levels.Similarly, cantrips don't need to be as awful as they are; they could have dropped their die type by one or two stages and added (Int/Cha) to the damage. 1d6+Int firebolt is a lot better than 1d10, and _still_ below the effectiveness of ye olde crossbow or longbow.You're conflating two posters here - KarinsDad has multiple healers. My group has no one healing. The druid _could_ but is shapeshifted, so does not. I'm our group's sole real healer (as an army trained combat medic), and I do so through out of combat use of the Healer feat and my imp delivering goodberries and healing potions. For clarity, while we have lots of healing potions, as a defense against possible TPK for instance, we use them _very_ slowly, because they're just not necessary often.The group has a shapeshifting druid, evocation wizard, and fiend-pact warlock (for casters, also a monk and fighter). So we really aren't comparing the wizard to a bard or cleric. The druid shapeshift problem is, well, a problem. It's badly balanced at 2nd level <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification