Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 7712530" data-attributes="member: 158">my mistake, For some reason I was misremembering that cure wounds does only did straight d8's; however, &quot;doing healing at all&quot; is the metric I use, because I get annoyed when that particular ability gets thrown to wizards just because someone feels like Wizards should be able to heal people. I'm not sure how Healing Word is supposed to be superior; it's only d4s, even if it's a bonus action and ranged. At higher slots, you're just getting d4s. Goodberry's not a problem because Druids are a type of cleric to me, so if they have healing no problem, and Goodberry particularly, like healing elixir, is a prep-spell and requires time to use (it's a curing magic that takes ten actions to use if one person is benefitting, not economical). Healing elixir gives a wizard or warlock a free 50gp item with every casting, that can be used for pinch healing for anyone in the group; i would expect clerics or druids (or even bards possibly) to have something like that, not every Tom, Dick, or Merlin. If you're inclined to make Alchemists wizard subclasses, have it as a special ability, not just lumped in with the general pool of wizard spells. It's a slippery slope. First, Healing Elixir; then, 3rd level restoration elixir spells, then 4th level remove blindness/poison elixirs, and before you know it wizards have been given 5th or even 4th level revivify ointment creation spells with no gems needed. Why not, clerics can already do it at 3rd level, right?It's a bit of a soapbox, I admit, but it does annoy me when wizards keep getting thrown other people's lunches. It's historically been a problem, and 5e tomed it down, but I don't want to see it return.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 7712530, member: 158"] my mistake, For some reason I was misremembering that cure wounds does only did straight d8's; however, "doing healing at all" is the metric I use, because I get annoyed when that particular ability gets thrown to wizards just because someone feels like Wizards should be able to heal people. I'm not sure how Healing Word is supposed to be superior; it's only d4s, even if it's a bonus action and ranged. At higher slots, you're just getting d4s. Goodberry's not a problem because Druids are a type of cleric to me, so if they have healing no problem, and Goodberry particularly, like healing elixir, is a prep-spell and requires time to use (it's a curing magic that takes ten actions to use if one person is benefitting, not economical). Healing elixir gives a wizard or warlock a free 50gp item with every casting, that can be used for pinch healing for anyone in the group; i would expect clerics or druids (or even bards possibly) to have something like that, not every Tom, Dick, or Merlin. If you're inclined to make Alchemists wizard subclasses, have it as a special ability, not just lumped in with the general pool of wizard spells. It's a slippery slope. First, Healing Elixir; then, 3rd level restoration elixir spells, then 4th level remove blindness/poison elixirs, and before you know it wizards have been given 5th or even 4th level revivify ointment creation spells with no gems needed. Why not, clerics can already do it at 3rd level, right? It's a bit of a soapbox, I admit, but it does annoy me when wizards keep getting thrown other people's lunches. It's historically been a problem, and 5e tomed it down, but I don't want to see it return. [/QUOTE]

Verification